Are you guys in the same room that that might explain some of those Yeah, we are. Unfortunately, he said, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. Mister gorbachaw tear down this wall. It's the Ricochet Podcast. Peter and Robert out time, James Lodox. We've got Steve Hayward, Lucretia and John You the Three Whiskey Teams, alets Averrizl's a podcast. I understand my predecessor's legal past today. So here's what I would say to mister Trump. Join me or I'll
join you in telling the Congress to pass this Bipartistan border security bill. We can do it together. The United States is being overrun by the Biden migrant crime. It's a new form of vicious violation to our country. Welcome everybody. It's the Ricochet Podcast, Number something or other. I don't know.
I'm James Lylax, and I'm here to tell you that Rob Long and Peter Robinson have quit smoking years ago as far as I know, but they're out and about in the world and in their stead we have, believe it or not, the Three Whiskey Happy our gang. That would be Lucretia. That would be Steve Hayward. That would be America's foremost McRib enthusiast. John, You welcome everybody to the Ricochet podcast. Good morning, James. Yes,
I'm happy to be back. Just like a happy meal. Absolutely yes, that mick rib with its pressed animal flesh into a familiar shapes, washed down with a shamrock shake. Oh, John's living high right, I'm hungry already already. Well, rather than sit here and discuss a fast food and its implications of the American diet, we should probably go to the news of the world, which is as ever bountiest. Where do we start? How about the border? People are saying that, you know, this might be an
issue, This might actually be an issue in the upcoming election. And to that end, we saw a couple of people vying for the job of president, one already is the other was heading down to Texas. So who wants to take this first? Biden at the border apparently, he said, he said, it's long past time to act, folks. We need to move on this. And that's great coming from somebody who obviously has been moving heaven and earth in the last three years or so to make sure that America is
safe from unwanted incursions to the south. So somebody take it first. Lucretia, I'll hand it to you. What do you think of Biden and Trump at the border? I'll take it and just comment on a couple of things.
That Biden went to the place in Texas which is probably right now the most secure, but all of Texas is fairly secure, and that's because Biden's refusal to act prompted Texas Governor Greg Abbott to send migrants to all sorts of places that were virtue signaling how much they loved immigrants and how welcome they were there. And of course it's destroying those cities. So they generally speaking Blue
seas, He's New York, Chicago, et cetera. And so Biden of course goes to visit the place that Texas has single handedly cleaned up and stopped. I think it went from thirty thousand a month ago to seventy five hundred apprehensions today and or yesterday when this month when Biden was there, And so you know, Biden's just such a I can't use those words. This is a family show. But to come and say that it's a long pastime to
act. Who does he think, who's fooling with that? You know, My whole point is Trump went down to the other place, Eagles Pass, and pointed out everything that Biden had done wrong. And everybody's saying Trump's winning on the border. But it only matters because illegal immigration is now a problem for the whole country in many ways, whereas it used to be a problem
just for me and my folks here at the border. Stephen, do you think that Trump has legitimacy that he had for years ago when it comes to eight years ago when it comes to talking about the border, after all he was the president. Yeah, well, of course. You know, illegal crossings plummeted under Trump, and for a bunch of reasons. One is, I think the word went out that not a good time to try and cross into the border to the United States, because Trump means what he says,
even in his actions such as building the wall didn't follow. And I think there's a lot too. I mean, I've been wondering for a long time, how do people get the word and how are always caravans being organized to get people from all over the world down to our southern border. By the way, what border I mean, the joke here is that we have a
border. This doesn't just happen spontaneously. So I think Trump still has his credibility because even if he's chaotic and all the other things you can say, I think he can say that at least he means it when we know Biden is plainly lying and just playing politics. And John, do you believe that people are willing to just forget about what's happened in the you know, in the last eight years and rollerdized with a guy who's talking the toughest on the
matter. Well, James, thanks for having me back on the podcast. Why haven't I been on more often? I'm still pissed off that you've been blocking me from taking over your host spot. You know how badly I want to be on the main Ricochet podcast. I would even give up two mcribs to come back. Do you agree you're angry at me for blocking you for taking my job. That's that's great, that's in the spirit of self interest. Then an abdignation of the self, I give it all over to you.
Oh no, don't do that. Oh no, oh my god, No, I don't actually want to be responsible for this huge machine Jesus. So here's one thing where I disagree with Steve and Lucretia. I think is, yes, Biden has failed at the border. Yes, a lot of the border policies are in the hands of the president, but I think it is a federal function alone, and I find it actually I understand why Governor Abbot wants to send the National Guard to the border. I understand why he
wants to put up wire on the border. But I don't think states are allowed to interfere with the federal government when it carry outs its functions for good or ill. So if Texas or Florida thinks that Biden is right not enforcing our immigration laws strictly enough at the border, I don't think the answer is to send in troops. I find that a dangerous path to start going down.
It reminds me, unfortunately, of the way some southern governors try to oppose the federal government's enforcement of Brown versus Board of Education, and the answer is at the ballot box. I find this actually the preferable answers. Don't send troops to oppose federal officers of the border. Try to get the issue on the national election, try to get Congress to do something about it or
try to change the president who will do something different with immigration. So my point, John, the most important thing that Abbot did was send illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities across the country, which did, in fact make it a much more national and a much more political issue than it had been before. So are you opposed to that too, or is that just something too close to immigration that a governor isn't allowed to do to protect his citizens. I
mean, I think it's a cute political stunt. I don't think there's anything illegal about it. If people want to take free bus tickets from the state of Texas and go somewhere else, that's certainly fine. But I don't think. But I think what Abbott is doing now is dangerous, which is to risk some kind of confrontation between the Texas National Guard and federal border officers. I mean, I think the federal government should again, for good or ill,
whether you agree with the policy or not, should prevail. See John, this is why you've been in Berkeley too long, and in the Department of Justice before that too long. The argument that we have with you is not really legal. Your points are completely cojent. In the abstract this is a political It seems to me that you really can't say as a political matter that a state is without any kind of remedy when the federal government is not
doing its duty. That's that's the root of our difference, and the fact that all it is is a Supreme Court opinion that says that somehow the federal government has exclusive control. Who cares? The Supreme Court also said that blacks were and human beings. Why should we care what the Supreme Court says about it? In fact, the States ran immigration policy for decades before the Supreme
Court got involved. That's a matter of that's not settled in my opinion, just because the Supreme Court said so sorry, I'm I'm a big fan of observing all the rules and the niceties and keeping all of the institutions and norms intact. I really am, because once you stray outside that and start coloring outside the lines, all of a sudden everything is open game. But I'm
not that but is not going to delegitimize what I just said. But there are people who are inclined to say, Look, it's been sticking by the rules and playing nice that's got us in this position in the first place. Nobody said anything about the fact that these cities would declare themselves to be so sure, as Charles Lawton said, and you know Squasimoto that they refused to
interface with Ice and were proud of the fact. You had the sheriff, I believe of Aspen Colorade who ran on the fact that he was not going to get along with Ice because it wasn't you know, it was an instrument of oppression. It was a means that undercut their legitimacy in the community,
et cetera. So when you have a government officials saying we are not going to follow the law, we are going to ignore the law, we are not even going to talk to the people who are tasked by law with enforcing the law at all, you have people to turn around and say, well, you know what, they were the ones they started it. They were the ones who put us down this path by refusing to cohere to legal norms. And that's what that's that's the dangerous part on both sides. But you
know they started it. But James, no, But I think there's a difference here. I'm sure that there is. I'm I'm just speaking of a general free floating mental idea, but go ahead and do it, and please for you know, explain the idea of the difference. No, no, no, because you're James. You know. The reason I'm jealous of you being the host here is I listened to the podcast every week and you usually are the paragon of federalism. You are usually the paragon of let Washington screw
up and let's rely on our states to solve our problem. States should be allowed to decide whether they agree with federal policies or not, and whether they want to help the federal government or not. You could have some states, unfortunately, I say, like California, which is we're not a sanctuary city, We're a sanctuary state. As a professor at the University of California,
I am not allowed. I'm forbidden by state law from telling Ice or whoever anybody in the federal government what I know about the immigration status of any students or employees I meet. That is totally up to California. Texas have a totally different rule. They could say, our state officials are going to help the federal government if they want more enforcement, and immigration is still the federal responsibility. Only the federal government can detain people and deport them from the country.
We don't want states enforcing federal law. But then after that, let the states decide whether they want to cooperate or not, and the voters can hold them responsible. If people in California don't want to see aliens coming across the border and then committing crimes, then they can change their government. But if we want to suffer the negative effects of illegal immigration, then that's what that's what we've chosen to do. Don't disagree with that, don't disagree with
any of that, And it doesn't contradict what I said. I agree with you that they have the right to do this, and if people don't like it, that they should use the means at their disposal given to us as citizens to change it. But that doesn't mean it's right. That doesn't mean that just because it's legal doesn't mean it is correct. And I think that
state's deciding not so. Actually, and now we really have a disagreement because I actually would I don't like seeing the law violated the border to the tune of three million people of the year. I think we should have much more legal immigration. I think having one million legal immigrants a year is just stupidly crazy. We have a country of three hundred and thirty million people, we have a labor shortage going on. I think we should have more legal immigration
as part of a deal control the border. Don't let people come across illegally. In the three million numbers, but we should have a lot more legal immigration too. We can debate the numbers, and we can debate where they come from and all of that stuff. I'm not in disagree. I'm a yes immigration both thumbs up. But the way we're doing it right now is
absolutely insane. Because well, somebody once said they're not sending their best anyway, so that so Actually the person I should be replacing is Rob because you don't have a real moderate on this podcast. Rob always says something moderate and you and Peter beat up on him, and then he just gives up and
rolls into a fetal ball. I'm willing to be aggressively moderate. There's a problem with what you're both saying, and what you're not recognizing is why on earth the corrupt and despicable Biden met stration would be opening the borders the way they are in the first place, or sanctuary cities would be welcoming illegal immigration beyond their virtue signaling. And of course it's the demographics, it's the replacement
theory. I can sound you can say I'm a bigot for saying that, But now we know that many of these cities, many of these states are
looking for ways to get these people to be able to vote. So what happens when the entire country has a plurality of illegal immigrants who love the Democratic Party and the money that's being dumped into them, and on and on and on and on, and there's no possibility for the people who were here and created the prosperity that they're sucking off of to vote them out of office.
What do we do? Then? That's a problem, you guys. I don't think anybody wants to face that because it sounds like you're being a bigot. But I don't care. I'm not a bigot. I see the damage done every day by illegal immigration because I live here. My house is eight miles from the border. I think that right. I think there are a variety of reasons that that can be attributed to a number of people, all of whom are on the left and progressive and have different reasons for it.
Some of them are Cloward Pivet, you know, crash the system somehow, just overwhelm and crash it and change it. Some of them, yes, do like the demographic differences because it helps them stay in power or get into power. Some of them are ideologically predisposed to say, well, what is citizenship really, Let's let them all in and then could give them the better. It's privileged for us to not do so, I think, but we can argue about the reasons for it. You've got the Chamber of Commerce.
It says they want cheap labor. We can have that argument later. I think the primary thing to do is to look at the problem facing us in the faith. You know, we can argue the rationales later, but do something first. Steven, Yeah, I mean I think the politics those are pretty simple on the Democratic side, because you know, Democrats used to be kind of hawks on immigration as recently as the Clinton years and even after that.
But then they woke up one day and they looked at California, which was pretty much a red state in presidential elections and even into the last decade, and they realized what changed California. They think it was immigration. So the switch flipped and they thought, oh if we can do the rest of the nation that has changed the demographics of it. That will mean we can get democratic majorities everywhere and run the country. I actually get And that's what
makes me worried about. I normally don't get worked up about about large numbers of illegal immigrants voting illegally. But you know, if the Democrats really why, Well, for a bunch of reasons, I do. Now I'm coming to the main point, which is I do now. If Democrats really believe the rhetoric, and I think they do, that Trump is this existential threat to democracy, then why wouldn't they try and cheat on a massive scale in this election? And the easiest way to do it with all these bodies that
you're dumping into states around the country. But there's no proof so far, is Sir Steve, from a reliable data, that voting by illegal immigrants has actually change the outcome of any national election. Is there? Well, I'm not sure about a national election. I think you can point to a few congressional districts in California and you know here and there, not on a wide scale, but in some of those close elections where they're decided by a thousand
votes. I think they may have tipped the balance here and there. The Democrats are going to win the popular vote in this next election. So I find this fear that's going to be illegal aliens who are going to change the
voting. I'm not defending having aliens who are not allowed to vote to vote, but I was going to say, if you're going to focus our attention and resources on making sure the election in November is free and fair, it's not going to be legal aliens that are going to somehow steal the election for Biden. Biden is going to win the popular vote, it's just the electoral
college is going to matter. Well, you know, in the current polls, Trump is actually leading in the popular vote first time ever for the last six eight weeks now, So don't be so sure he wouldn't win the popular vote in a fair election. That's the aggregate nationwide popular vote, which yeah, which is you know a bit about that. But I'm happy to take bets. It will take bets from any listener. For one micrib the mik rib that Biden will win the popular vote in the mbe really wants to win.
That's just a data issue. Oh well, nobody wants to win a McRib what are you anti American lucretia. But the left wants the popular vote to be the determining fact. They want to get rid of the electoral college and just have it be a popular vote, so you know, the coastal states can lord it over all the rest of us and we can take it and we can like it. So yeah, I mean, so there are all these different reasons that people have for wanting to change with the immigration policy
that we have, as we've heard here on the podcast. And it's not just limited to the South, and it's not just limited to Chicago and New York and the other cities that we see in the news. In Wisconsin, there's a story that just erupt just started floating up around here Wisconsin. Whitewater, Wisconsin. I had to smile when I saw the name of that town. Took me back to the good old days of cattle futures and all the rest of it. Remember remember that boy, those just times like a golden
eye. I was all that investigation. It was awesome, It certainly was anyway. So Whitewater, Wisconsin has a population of fifteen thousand, rather used to have a population of fifteen thousand, not as a population of sixteen thousand, and the thousand people who have come there in the last couple of years are mostly illegals, and they're mostly from Venezuela and from Colombia as far as I take it right, and what this has done is I'm sorry Nicaragua.
I'm sorry. I should be an NPR host Nicoagua. So they have a problem because all of a sudden, they have to get more English as a second language teachers. They have to figure out how to plug the police budget because there's more calls. The town has a four hundred thousand dollars budget deficit now because the demographics have been changed. Now Holly all got to Whitewater.
Why they all decided to go to Whitewater, I don't know. I don't know if there was a caravan or a particular thing, or if there was some local organization that was saying, let us do the virtuous thing and bring them to our town. Don't know. But there's no doubt that changing from fifteen thousand of the demographics that they had before two an extra thousand nicaragum and Venezuelans alters the culture of a place, does it not. And we've been
lectured. It's seemingly a nauseum about colonialism and the way that there was absolutely no right for the West to go into these places and insert themselves and make the cultural changes that they did. Is this not some sort of reverse form of that? And I think the people defending this would shrug their shoulders and say, well, maybe it is, but it turned about's fair play.
It's Whitewater, Wisconsin's turn. Now this colonial thing colonial is something I don't know if I'm going to talk about Gaza and people accusing israelis now colonizers, that's this is ridiculous. So many came from Asia. Think the best thing that happened to Asia is that the West showed up with technology and resources and theories that made the area the most prosperous it's ever been in history. I think it's crazy for people to say a Western civilization has been a bad thing.
But an answer to this question of a large number of immigrants showing up in certain places all at once overwhelmed closer. Isn't that the story of America? This has been going on for the whole history of the country. Yes, you have had large numbers of have you not read Lucretia about the waves of immigration in the late nineteen or early twentieth centuries into the East Coast cities. I mean talk about overwhelming. You have large numbers of Irish, Italians,
Polish all coming into these cities at the same time. And you read stories from back then about people complaining about police being overwhelmed about the rise of organized crime. But our society has been very good at incorporating them, assimilating them, and they'd be American. Yes, yes, I agree that that is the story in New York and Chicago and big cities that have the resources
and the capacity to take it. Yes, And I'm for that. I'm for that, and I was, you know, and I don't want to cut everybody off here, and I'm going to shut up after this, but I want to tell you something that I found in a newspaper from one hundred years ago, February twenty fifth, nineteen twenty four. I talked about this in the diner yesterday the Los Angeles Times. They were debating a bill.
The Democrats were opposing it, a bill, the Johnson Immigration Bill, Okay, that they said would fan the flames against the populations from other places, that would cause national that would cause religious national hatreds. Here was the statement read on the floor one hundred years ago, in nineteen twenty four. The foreign born population of our country and those born here of foreign parents the Democrats
comprise thirty three and a third percent of the total population. Of these, at least twenty five percent are recent immigrants and constitute the young men and women of today's laboring classes necessary to our industrial prosperity. That was one hundred years ago. They're saying that thirty three percent of the total population is foreign born
or traces themselves back to form born. So yes, that is the American story, and we can support that without saying that a small town in Wisconsin is obliged by history somehow to suddenly turn around and expend all of its money
and energy on a population that suddenly just arrives. Yeah. Can I add to that, James, that I think nineteen twenty four if that bills, the one you're talking about is the immigration bill that halted immigration because people thought we've had more than we can effectively assimilate, and we need a pause, and I think we need that again. And then secondly, John, those older waves of immigration are different than a lot of what we're seeing now,
not all of it. But they all came from coming carem Europe. They came from Judeo Christian civilizations. You know the Oshconazi Jews, and you know the Iris. All the people you mentioned are essentially just like us, except they had to learn English and I had to learn it quickly, and they did because we didn't have a welfare state that coddled them and actually corrupted them in a lot of ways. If we went back to that situation, well,
I'll just end with Milton Freeman's famous line. You can either have high rates of immigration or a generous welfare state, but you can't have both. And we're testing those propositions. Before John gets to that Lucretia, you had something they say. I was just going to say that John's attempt to make some sort of moral analogy between that and what we have today. Most of those people did not come illegally. By definition, when you let people in
your country who are illegal aliens, they are lawbreakers. They are lawbreakers, and why would we think that they would make good citizens? And when they're willing to break the very first law when they walk in the country, even if they're good people. They are breaking the law. My grandparents came here, they immigrated, They went to a small town with lots of other people from the same place they were, and not one of them ever accepted one
penny from the government, probably until Social Security, I'm guessing. But they also learned English. They taught their kids English. You know, it's not the same thing. And immigrants used to love this country. Did you see in any of the newspaper accounts or you know, online accounts of all of the immigrants walking across with sweatshirts and t shirts on that say f you America. Why would we be letting people like that in? There is no analogy
between what you just said and what is happening today across the board. If you want to talk about legal immigration fifty years from now, okay, but no, right now. We need to stop anybody from coming here illegally and then figure out what we're going to do about legal immigration. I guess that's what James is saying too, so I shouldn't be repetitive. But oh no, that's we're all here for to repeat, you to repeat me and my infinite wisdom tower, my towering, and like John, your response before we
move on to the next topic. Oh, I've made my points. I actually not. So it's not so clear to me that the aliens who are coming in, and yes, I could say they're breaking the law when they come in, are acting immorlly. They're violating our laws. They feel like they have some greater moral reason to break those laws, which may be trying to come for someplace where they have political freedom or economic opportunity. I don't think I mean you you so, you know, for the listeners, Steve
and Lucretia are professional moral philosophers. I am not. I'm just a pragmatic, realistic lawyer. These guys they think about Aristotle and Plato, and they spend hours and hours thinking about the just and the good and the beautiful. I don't. I'm just trying to come up with a practical solution. It shows John my practical solutions shoot at the border. You don't like that, now, this is why that is not that that's like you're morally principled thing.
You're like, oh, they're and invading force. Cosey boy, then why can't we shoot them. I don't think that's practical. I really don't. I think that what the practical solutions. You have to figure out how to control the border and then right filter who you want to come in, and then who you want to be citizen, And you can't just I don't think it's a good answer just say well, there's so many people coming, we should just shut the border entirely, which I hear you and Steve saying,
which I think is not possible. And then we have a totally unguarded border with Canada. Why don't people just come into Canada? Come right? We can't shut the country now, we have trade, we have portsometry, so we just it's more of a practical problem about how to control a movement of people and who want to come to the country. I think, good right, John, this is going to be the most awesome comment threat for this episode. I can't wait to read it. Why very reasonable? What
are you talking about? Why don't they come from Canada because they have to pass through North Dakota a barren expanse that terrifies the hardest of hearts. Well, when it comes to a matter of fact, they do they do. We just had a case here of some smugglers who actually got the people that were smuggling killed frozen to death because they were coming from the northern place. So yeah, they're coming from all I agree, they're coming from the north,
They're coming from all sides. They're coming. Lord knows how many cargo vessels discard this gorge a metal box that has some people in it. Yes, but it seems that we can do more. So we can all agree then we've solved that issue, and that we should move on speaking of legal justin moral and the rest of it to Donald Trump being kicked off the ballot again and in this working its way up the legal system. John I, you being, of course, are Ricochet Supreme Court correspondent. Tell me,
finally I'm getting a good title out of you. Well, you known that for years. It's something I've applied willy and or nilly. I mean, you say it in the most cynical, mocking tone. I was trying to be as genuine as I possibly could. I guess my true feelings just worked their way outside of my theatrical performance. See I knew it. But do go on? So this is not as important as the immunity issue. This
uh, you know, decision to kick Trump off the ballot. It's a loser if you listen to the oral arguments, read the briefs in the Supreme Court case. The Supreme Court is going to hold very shortly that the president cannot be disqualified. And then this case, this like all the other blue state secretary's of States who thought they had some power to remove Trump from the
battle, that's just going to be over and done with. The much more serious thing is, you know, what's going on with Trump and the criminal cases and the immunity case at the court just granted. But I think this effort to disqualify him that was you know, uh and never Trump or pipe dream. It had it was interesting, but it didn't have a chance at this Supreme Court. And I think this Illinois judge will be quickly overturned. The community case you mentioned expY it, you know, to Dell pep a
little bit more about that. Well, that's actually really interesting. And this is actually one where I thought initially this long you know, hail Mary pass effort, but Trump is going to work. It's so the issue was is the president immune from criminal prosecution after he's left office? Prosecution by the federal government states is another issue. So this is you know, this centrally involves a January sixth prosecution by the Special Council Jack Smith, and the other prosecution
for mishandling classified documents that's going on in Florida. So President Trump has lost at the trial court. He's lost on this at the d C Circuit, which is the most powerful appeals court, which is in Washington, d C. I think he's raised and arguments he's ultimately going to lose that a he has immunity and can only be tried for things which he was impeached and convicted for by the House and the Senate and so. But tactically he's really succeeded.
I mean, the courts have helped him here. Because the Supreme Court has scheduled the oral arguments for the last week of April, the decision won't come out till July fourth, around the July fourth weekend, which means I think it's really hard to get a trial and a verdict in time for the November elections. But at the same time, the trial will be going on during the election season, which might give Trump alney of opportunities to appear on
the front of the courthouse in Washington. Scene he's being railroaded by the Biden administration. I have a question for John about the Colorado or where the Illinois judge and the timeline about that. The Colorado case is also going to be decided by the court sometime we're here in April. Is that or you don't know? Oh no, the oral arguments already, Kurt, So we're just waiting for this. It could be any day. Now, buye to the Illinois case where the judge. By the way, so this I have to
do this. The Illinois judge who removed Trump from the ballot is so damn illiterate she should be shot on principles what I told Stephen John, because this was her sentence just for the throw in with the illegal aliens and start firing exactly. Court shares the Colorado Supreme Court sentiments that did not reach its conclusion
lightly. Somebody explained to me what that means, because that's a judge writing and that came from the actual anyway, Sorry, will that be if the court rules in the Colorado case that they can't kick Trump off the ballot, that will automatically cover this because she said she was delaying her decision. I believe until today to give chance Trump a chance to appeal but he doesn't need to write if yeah, I fire for him, Yeah I fire him.
I wouldn't even bother because if the Supreme Court says, as I expect it will, that states have no ability to choose who to disqualify or not based on whether they participate in insurrection. That's up to the federal government to do it. Then every state officially tried to do this, their action is just automatically blocked. Thank you. Yeah. But the the other case that you
referenced, John is the immunity. And look, I mean this is tricky because I actually think there's a good, again abstract principal ground for broad immunity for presidential acts. The difficulty is, you know, Trump is out on the margin of things and presents the court a big problem. I kind of worry that what we're going to get is something like we got out of the
Bush v. Gore case in two thousand, right. You know, the Court had to intervene in that case because things we were getting out of canned and what they had a sentence in Bush versus Gore that said something to the fact of, well, yeah, we're deciding this case, but we really don't think it should be a precedent for anything like this ever, again,
which has always raised tackles. I've got a feeling in the court it's going to look at this and wrestle with it seriously and then probably side against Trump because it's just on the edge, and they don't want to go so far as to say it's complete immunity for any possible action, including shooting someone on Fifth Avenue. In that famous phrase, why would you say he's on the margins to begin with, Steve, what on the margins did Trump actually?
Oh? Oh, I agree with that that, I mean, so one more level of deep then, so Trump was not actually being charged with insurrection by Jack Smith. One of the I'm not sure it's a formal count, but one of the arguments they're making is that he knew he lost the election and he was acting in bad faith. That seems to be a subjective judgment, because Trump's argument is, no, I was doing all this in defense of the constitution, because a fraudulent election subverts our constitution. That seems to
me a pretty strong argument. If they weren't charging him with the crime of insurrection or some other formal crime, or actually shooting somebody on Fifth Avenue then I think I don't think I would stretch the immunity umbrella that far. But that's a pretty weird circumstance. And I just paused there because between three of these efforts intellectuals, I thought somebody was going to jump in, probably John. But yes, I'm ready to be effervescent. Okay. So so I
don't think Trump immunity. I do think he has good claims when he's actually tried to resist these criminal charges. Immunity means like you just can't prosecute Trump for anything he did as president. I don't think that's consistent with what the Founders thought. I think it's a terrible idea that we now have what I hope does not become a permanent practice of presidents prosecuting their predecessors, because I
think that does lead us on the road to Nicaragua. But I think that the Founders said, I think pretty clearly that presidents after they leave office can be prosecuted. You look at their discussion of impeachment and they basically say, look, impeachment is for removing presidents who do bad things. Compeach, it's
not criminal. We're not actually trying and convicting and throwing anybody in jail for impeachment, and then the founders would say, Hamilton would say, because you can do that to them after they leave office, they can always be prosecuted after they leave office. So I think one but the second thing is immunity is just whether you can prosecute him doesn't mean that Jack Smith's going to win.
I agree with part of what Steve said. These prosecutions, these charges for defrauding the US, which you would use for a defense contractor, or obstecting Congress, which you would actually that's what you would use for Hunter Biden. You know, people who don't obey congressional subpoenas. Those crimes, those charges don't really fit what Trump did. They should have charged Trump with insurrection. Jack Smith chose not to do that. He went out and don't.
I think Trump could actually make a very good claim once the trial starts that he actually should be a quick that actually the charges should be dismissed because they don't apply to what actually happened on January sixth. But that's immunity. Trump has gone too far with the immunity claim. He actually may end up harming the presidency in some way if the Supreme Court ends up issuing a case that really narrows what presidents can and can't be sued for. James, I don't
want to belabor this. I just want to say that John slipped in that I think he should have been charged with insurrection, which is the most idiotic thing John has said in a long time. But let let's just go on and not take that one up. Thank you for pointing that out, which I'm sure was hard for you to do. Lucretia, that is also the shortest thing Lucretius said in response to one of my stupid things in a long time too, that from the border to the national events, to across the
ocean to Israel. I mentioned before that there was of course, people are always angry about colonization and the history thereof The latest thing we've heard is that Israel is a manifestation, if not the nip Ultra, the epitome of colonization, in that there's never been any Jews there before, but all of a sudden forty eight a whole bunch showed up and kicked everybody out, and it's illegal and genocide is going on. I've been hearing this my entire life,
it flares to the surface whenever there's an intefada or a second intefada, or something happens, or this or that or the other. Now we have an event in Gaza which hit our mind, newspaper all the wires yesterday, framing it as Israeli troops firing into a crowd and killing one hundreds of people, and to which one might say, I wonder if there's another take on that.
I wonder if this is another bombed hospital. I wonder if when they say witnesses say, or health authorities say, if there's going to be a little asterisk, that say, oh, and by the way, the health authorities are the mosque another one there was not, And I tracked the headline throughout the day as it got massaged and changed. As it sounds now, I think the thing is hundreds die in food riot as Israeli's fire or something
like that. The primary purpose is to let you know that the IDF fired a whole bunch of bullets during this food distribution and a lot of people died, and that's basically their fault, and it's their fault anyway, because they invaded Gaza. Well, it's their fault anyway. Because they're there in the first place, and the end, the Gosens are hungry, and the Gossens are hungry, which is the IDF's faulted because they should have done what in
response to October seventh. I'm not exactly sure. I guess they're supposed to do this and no more and leave everything in place so it could happen again. There was a joke I heard the other day that I'll probably end the
podcast with. It's a pretty grim one, but right now, I just want to hear what you guys have been hearing about this as the story evolves, and it's like nobody ever learns that the first story out that comes the first instance of these stories, the first iteration always being genocidal Israeli's pointlessly use overkill to kill a whole lot of people for apparently no reason other than bloodlust, is the first take, and after about three or four iterations of that,
it seems to come back to something where, oh, oh, that didn't happen at all. I disagree with one thing you said, James, and that's nobody ever learns to even to speculate that that was not exactly the intention. From the very beginning, knowing that, you know, the pro Palestinians that Rashid t leave in her ilk will automatically jump on this and use it as propaganda throughout their communities. And I know you know that. I
just it was just the way you said it. That's the whole point, of course, is the IDEF is not responsible for a riot that killed hundreds of people who were going after food. They had nothing to do with it. And everything they're doing is legitimate in terms of fighting a real enemy. And this nonsense about colonialism, as you put it, it's as if Jews have not been there for what three thousand years at least that we know of,
and that Palestinians didn't even exist in practically since my lifetime. It's all. It's such nonsense, and it's so frustrating that you can't seem to get to any truth on the matter. But it's because I think the whole thing is it designed to be propaganda. Well, when I said hold on, I just one thing. When I say nobody learns, I mean nobody in the media seems to learn and to think and stop and question the sources. Because it's curious to me that you have a new generation of people in journalism
who believe that objective reporting is wrong. You can't be objective. First of all, the individual can never be, but the institutions of journalism should not be objective because that gives both sidism to evil. That if you say there's another side to climate change or another side to Trump policies, then you are equivocating with evil, and there is no other side. But there's always another
side, it seems to them when it comes to reporting on Israel. That's the point of which the objectivity that, well, we're just being objective here. We're reporting what Hamas says, and report what Israel says. We're being objective. Steven, You're going to say, well, I was going to say Hamas is very skilled at creating provocations that sometimes draw Israeli fire, but most often I think the Hamas people are doing the shooting themselves, because they're
that cynical and evil. Right, And the media falls forward, and you know, what's the old saying is that, you know, truth, falsehood flies around the world before the truth he has put its shoes on, and I think we see that here. There was another video that you might have seen a week or so ago, James, that was shows that every once
in a while they screw this up and it doesn't work. And I don't think it was contrived, but it was a video of some Gosden marching his look like five year old boy to for an Israeli tank and he's yelling at them, you know, shoot shoot. I mean he was begging his Ralies to shoot his kid. That's the way it came across. And instead the Israeli soldiers walked up and gave the kid a candy bar, so they didn't get their propaganda moment out of it. But encouraging diabetes tooth decay, yeah
right, God say I think that. Well we also should underscore I think and this is he would not get this if you're found in the US media or even with the BI administration is saying but unfortunately, civilians die in war, and I actually think the Israelis are going well beyond what almost any other nation other than US would do to protect civilians and fighting this war where they're warning people, trying to get civilians to leave the areas of fighting. Compare
that to Hamas right. They are using the fact that we believe in Western civilization against us. They're not trying to defend their civilian population. They're trying to put them out as human shields. They want Israel to kill as many of their own civilian population as possible. So right, so Steve said, you know, Hamas is really good at propaganda. What they're really bad at
is actually fighting a real war. What they're really good at is throwing civilians as cannon fodder in front of Israeli bombs and guns, because that's their real strategy, and so the only way to get through it. So you can't let them succeed at it. I mean, this is the to get into
the integrated laws of war. You're not allowed right to put civilians in front of you, You're not allowed to shoot from civilian buildings, and under the laws of war, those are the people who are responsible for any war crimes, not you when you have to shoot against them, because otherwise you're going to encourage. If Hamas succeeds, you're going to see twice as many civilians next time. Piled on top of right, some more civilians sent out.
In the progressive intellectual cosmology, the palest Indians will always have them a higro as we used to call it back in the eighties. The moral high ground, and since they are the victims, and they are the oppressed, and they are the colonized, than any response, any means necessary, is justified. That's all there is to it. Anyway, Appreciate you, James,
I have a question for you and for the other posts. We know how incredibly far the IDF in Israel in general is willing to go to protect civilians, to follow the laws of war, to do all of the things that will try and win them some kind of credibility on the international stage, and it's always seems to be an abject failure for the most part. And I'm wondering, if I'm Israel, how much longer do I even bother? How much longer do I bother to worry about civilian casualties that are brought about by
hamas, by policies or actions specifically taken by a Hamas. I wonder that, you know, it's sort of a little bit like my arguing about how much longer Republicans are going to try to do the right thing. I'll leave that aside, but in the face of fighting evil at some point, since the international community will not force hamas to follow the rules of war, as John was pointing out how much longer should we expect Israel to do that and
what would be the consequences if they stopped. I think there are two ways to look at that. One when it comes to sort of the close up fighting that they've been doing, I think that they will continue to adhere to the laws of war because to do otherwise would be never mind the rest to the world. They know the rest of the world's opinion is going to be what it is. It would need some leftist in France waving his finger at
them. I think it's a matter of self conception. I think they have a self conception of themselves as a decent society that is not going to stoop at the levels. And while it would be easier to drop a daisy cutter or a mob but you know, every ten feet in Gaza, job done over pressure, working in the tunnels, dust off your hands and go home. It's not their self conception themselves, and I think a sense of national
shame would attend. I may be completely naive about that. On the other hand, I don't think that when it came to using a nuclear weapon to respond to taking out of Tel Aviv, when the Iranians get one and one over. I don't think that they would say, no, we really can't hit Tehran. It's just not in US. I think those are two different situations, and in the first, I think that they will continue to stick by the rules of war. In the second situation, the temple columns get
pulled down. Yeah, I mean I think, right, I think that an eye for an eye, right, that would be the situation with a nuclear exchange with Dran. But Lucretia, I don't think that they need to go scorts to Earth. I mean, I think they can conduct their operations within the laws of war. And I think that also public comports with Jewish teaching. But I'm no expert. What I think is but equally interesting a parallel question is I think Israel has decided we're not going to listen to Biden
and the Europeans. We're going to finish the job on our own terms.
And I mean that is quite significant because if you go back to George W. Bush, and I know it was a minor war compared to this, but when Israel went into Lebanon two thousand and five, I forget the year to fight back against Hesbula Apparently George Bush, very pro Israel, told them that really you have to wrap this up in thirty days beyond that, and you know, we know Ronald Reagan held back Israel in nineteen eighty two in Lebanon, and then of course, you know, we regretted that the sequel
to that, of course, but everything that I understand, and the Wall Street Journal had a great story about how a recent funk between Biden and Net and Yahoo ended with Biden either yell agant Net and Yahoo or a cloud,
I'm not sure, but he hung up the phone angry. Is the report that's going passed along, So I think Israel's decided and they're united by That's the other thing you hear is that the Israelis are overwhelmingly united on finishing the war completely on their own terms, and the rest of us can just lump it, except that they rely on us for I mean, this is what's really going on. Hamasa's propaganda is really just aimt at the Biden administration to
cut off funding and material to Israel. I mean, Israel can't succeed in the end unless we help them. They they need us for money, fuel, weapons. I mean, the right thing is if Israel does want to finish the job and we cut them off, I think net Nyah who will still continue the offensive, It'll just be without precision guided missiles and high level intelligence, will be much worse for the Palestinian population in Gaza. One more
question for you guys. Sorry about this, James, but I'm actually curious because that's what the question. Who's the host here? I want to know we're all trying out for your job, John, who wants to be those now? Lucretia is asking you question? You give us five hours to just talk about these things. I wouldn't have to do it on the podcast. But I have a question and it's a serious one and it's about Michigan.
So if if the Biden administration is worried about the electoral consequences of it support lukewarm as it is for Israel in places like Michigan where there is a strong I don't know, Muslim vote whatever it is, Uh, what does that actually mean for the larger political electoral landscape. I mean, they're obviously not going to vote for Trump. Will they just stay home? How does that work? Where? I don't know? They may you see a story they
may they may hold their nose. I means, as the party goes more and more to the progressive side of things, you may have people who put more pressure on And as John is liked, isn't you know, like to remind us at the beginning, the show us the means of the ballot change national policy. I don't know why Joe Biden is particularly as pro Israel as he is. I don't think the man has a thought out position in his
head. I think he's an empty windsock, and it's been so the duration of his career, and that we're seeing now as sort of a remnant, you know, a twitching instinctive support of Israel and realizing it's probably a good thing. But as the party moves left, you don't have to be for Michigan to have the progressive animus against Israel for being a colonialist Western state. Now, the good thing is we're not talking about the day is when the
squad is descended. The good thing is I think these ideas are on the wayane. It's not as though they've been unchallenged in the intellectual marketplace lately, and it's not as though they haven't been ridiculed, And it's not as though the moderate sides I think of the Democratic Party is starting to look at the people that got in bed with and say I don't like this. I don't like this at all. So whether or not that sensible population rises to the
four or just ages out and dies, I can't tell you. That's all I can say in my own confused and rambling away because I'm wrapping that up and moving along to something else before we end the conversation entirely because this one's fun, I think I may get something out of you. You've all been
sitting back their milk toast, not putting yourself on the line. I mean, this is probably the only podcast where we've had two, count them, two suggestions of shooting people, and I'm hoping for and looking, well, you know, this is your chance for a third year, unless John would like to find somebody to shoot here or Steven. It has to do with a clip from MSNBC. And I can pronounce the last woman's name, Heidi, Prisibila, Prisibyla. I'm not making fun of it. It's just one
of those names that's all consonants. Except for the end. She made the following claim quote the thing that unites them as Christian nationalists, not Christians, by the way, because Christian nationalists is very different. She said, is that they believe our rights as Americans, as all human beings, don't come from any earthly authority. They don't come from Congress, they don't come from
the Supreme Court. They come from God, is what she said. She came to this astonishing revelation that there are people out there who believe there is a higher authority than the state. Now, my head's just full of bees when I hear something like this. And you know, the thing is, I think it's entirely possible to be agnostic and to not be one of those
people who believe that. However you conceive of a deity handed down the tablets or whatnot, you don't have to believe that to believe that there actually is a higher authority than that constituted in the halls of Washington, d C. That our innate rights of human beings are granted to us by our existence as human beings and such. So what do you guys think of this quurse?
This is a big notion abroad in the land. I can't even take that one seriously, but I will answer in a serious way, which is to say, the genius of the American regime, the American experiment, the American Constitutional Republic, is that it was capable of making what you just said, James, that our rights actually don't come from us, from our own self, self willing, from Congress, from Washington. They are beyond human beings
in some way. You know. The Declaration says nature and Nature's God, and the fact that those rights exist because of our human nature is accessible to us through human reason. Obviously, this I'll just say Heidi. Heidi has no capacity for reasons, so she doesn't see this. But I just want to I just shout out to the American Constitutional Republic as it, at least
once was. That's what made it the greatest country in the history of the world, is our recognition that our rights belong to us as human beings and were not given to us by government. They were given to us by something greater than ourselves. You know, James, You're probably wise to wait till the very end to pose this question, because the three of us have actually taught a law school seminar largely on this question, and have guest speakers about
the whole religious liberty of business. I'll just say this briefly. You know who else is a Christian nationalist if that's your definition. Well, Joe Biden once upon a time said, when he was yelling at Robert Borock by the way, thirty some years ago, that he believes our rights don't come from government, they come from God. Bill Clinton said that I can think of things. Franklin Roosevelt said that would get him run out of the faculty club
at any liberal university in America today if Democrats said them today. So this just shows appalling historical ignorance as well as a sort of a general what's the phrase crushing morosity on offer these days from places like MSNBC. Joe Biden said that when he had less hair, where's it fewer? Here? John? Will go, you got one whiskey related question to go. But I want your take on this law guy? Can you can you tell me in the
thirty seven seconds exactly some it all up for it? Well? Remember when Justice Catangi Brown Jackson, Macretia's favorite justice on the Supreme Court, was right up in her confirmation hearings, and basically I think Ted Cruz asked her, do you believe in natural rights, and she said she refused to answer the question if for a call, and so basically denied the Declaration of Independence, which was the foundation for abolitionism and the foundation for Lincoln's view of why the
Civil War had to be fought to free the slaves. But in this seminar, and I don't want to bore people with what we argue about in the seminar, but you probably aren't surprised to learn that Steve and Lucretia pile on me and attack me, because the only amendment I would make to what they've said is and I think, actually, James, what you said is actually closer to my view maybe, which is I'm not sure whether you have to
be a Christian to believe this, or even believe in a God. I think that you could be an atheist and still believe that each you know, man and woman and whatever other sex is we're going to be creating in the future. Just throw that in Asia, but what every man, woman and child is equal in some fundamental way, and so they therefore start out in life with equal rights, and that we created the American government unlike Asian governments
in European governments. We created American governments to protect the rights. And so that's why we want to we start out by limiting government, not thinking, oh, the government gave us this, so we're so lucky, and so the government can do everything. So I think that in the seminar, this is really the question we fight over. Is is it the rights dependent on religion? Are they given to you by God? Or can you I'm a big fan of Hobbes, you know, does this just something rational? Equal
human beings create when they leave the state of nature. I've always thought the say nature would be fun, but if we have to leave it, we leave it and enter society. That's how we may are right. So does it's not dependent on Christianity in anywhere? Even being religious? What I said, right? So, I mean I learned this back in high school in
North Dakota. It wasn't hard, but somehow over the last twenty thirty forty years we've transmuted this idea into something completely different, where the idea of being born equal. Somehow it means that we all have equal capacities, and therefore we have to have mechanisms by the state to ensure equitable outcomes and etcetera,
etcetera. Etcetera. Getting back to this very basic concept seems fundamental for preserving the Union as we know it. And to see an MSNBC commentator say something stupid like that, and I just thought, my last thing is her view is not at all a minority view effect. I think her view represents what most professors think, most professionals, a lot of college graduates, all those
elites. I think they agree with her and disagree with you. Why John, you said it, but you didn't, you didn't really carry on. And that is because what a recognition of equal human rights, natural rights that came to us from nature or from Nature's God. That means that not only do we create government to secure those rights. But you said it, there's
a limitation on government. What progressives do not want is anything that would limit their ability to use government to create whatever kind of society at the moment they think is appropriate. And that's why you have to deny that rights come from anywhere other than from the regime and power at the time, because otherwise it limits them, It limits what is just, It limits all of those kinds of things. And that's the reason I think what you say is very true.
Everyone in who's an elite in power these days believes that rights are what we decide to give the American people. We end with this, since you guys do the three whisks. I'm sorry, I said, God, oh I'm misgendered. And now now you're on the list. You are on the list. Well to the recipient be the group of us who are on the receiving end of lucretia. Since you three individuals or does that sort of is that wrong because you're more of a collective. Does that you've subsumed your individuality
into a collective? Guys? Okay, all right then, guys, since you are the three whiskey happy hour, We're going to go out where each of you is going to name one whiskey for people perhaps to sample and sip whilst do they listen to your brilliance, John, I've become a big fan of American bourbons. And even though bourbon is best made in the South, my two colleagues here now that I'm a big fan of whistle Pig, which has made somehow a bourbon made somehow in New England. It's good. It
is good. I like whistle Pig. Lacretia Lafroy Lafoy tan is my favorite go to whiskey, and Lucretia hates it. So there's another one. It's it's a It's a bit pity, isn't it. Yeah. I'm more of a spade guy myself a bit, and I think it's like licking an ash tray. James. I, on the other hand, prefer a single malt Scotch old enough to vote. Really, I'm pretty open about whether it's a
McCallen or a Glenn Livitt or something like that. But yes, and none of that stuff that smells like somebody put their cigarette butt out in the bottle or added a tincture of lyesol. No, I'm with you. I'm more on that side myself a little. So, James, what's your favorite? James? You've never said that on your podcast. What is your favorite? J John It's almost as if I was responding to her comment and then segueing to my own choice in my own way. But thank you for reminding me
that I'm going to be a great. Most guys going to be great. I was just going to say that McCallan twelve is nice. I mean, the eighteen could be considered a little bit too much of what it is in the twelve understates itself nicely, so it can't vote, at least not yet. I give them a couple of years. So what James is trying to say is mccallun twelve was available at Costco's near you. McAllen eighteenth too expensive.
I have a fine, full panoply of whiskeys which I will be consulting tonight, and I always start with the best and then work my way down to the you know, to the stuff that takes the varnish off the floor, because by the time you get to that, who cares. I like to experiment every week. I tried something the other day called Paddleford, which was the mash bill was high corn, and so I liked that, and it was it was good. But I got to tell you what I've really
become fond of lately is something called monkey shoulder. And that's ah, yes, I've had that. I hate all things related to monkeys. I just don't like monkeys at all. I can't stand them because I remember Jonah Goldberg on a cruise accused you of being a monkey. Ohay, accuse me of being many things? Yes right, oh, yes, yes he did. He accused me and then you pulled the best You did the funniest thing I've ever seen in my life, which is you pretended to you'urine I did.
That was that is like the funniest thing I've ever seen at all. It was a glorious moment. It really was, because he didn't know I was in the audience and we were doing we had the largest cruise shy at the Oasis of the Sea and we were in the back of the skating rink because of the ship of course, of course has a skating rink with seats around it, and that's where we were having the night Owl. And he was doing night Owl with a couple other guys, with Rob I think possibly,
and he was discussing something and he Robert Reich came into it. He's making a short joke and he made some remark about how Robert Reich had to stand on a soapbox in order to use the urinal and he said, like Lilac's I think is what he said. Somebody has the tape of this. Well.
I was up in the stands with Michael Walsh at the point here and I heard that and everyone laughed at that point, and I'm of the opinion that you ought never to make a joke of somebody else's physical appearance, unless, of course, everybody knows you're the dearest of friends, and you do it back and forth and it's part of your part of your bantern, part of your bit, which I thought people could assume this was the case here,
but I could not resist. I marched down the stairs, I walked across the stage, at which point there's a little thrill in a rill is people wonder exactly what's going to happen. And with my back to the audience, I mimic getting up on that soap box in front of Jonah and mimic the actions of hiking down one's fly and doing and then shaking and zipping up and walking off without a word. It was so awesome. He was so humiliated. It was beautiful. He was so humiliated. Everyone laughed and was
on your side. It was great. I've always wondered if you never forget, never forgave me for that at all. And I haven't the faintest idea anyway. It's so monkey Shoulder, and I'll be very brief about it. Monkey Shoulder was so named because the guys who had to stir the mall to pair in the mash would develop one big shoulder that was larger than the others, and they called that the monkey shoulders. So if you can imagine,
these guys were walking around a big drape and arm. And one of the reasons that I like it is it's a blend made by Grants, which is my favorite go to Barbour whiskey. I love It's a nice sweet blend and this is their nu ultra of their blends monkey shoulder. So there you have
it. You have Lfroud. If you want something that does indeed taste like somebody shoved to peep down the back of your throat, you've got your McCallum eighteen, which is an absolutely fantastic and expensive and shows you exactly how high maintenance Lucretia is. And then like lucretia also class C and works in every environment right. And then of course you remember John and said that he likes the the the Evan Williams six months old. So there you go, folks.
That goes with the McRib. It goes with the McRib, goes with the McRib. Those are your intellectual instructions for the week. Your geopolitical insights your constitutional If you like this, well, then you're gonna love the rest of the three Whiskey podcasts as well. I assume that Peter and Robb will be back. I almost hope now, because this has been great. Gentlemen, ladies, guys, thank you for joining this the Ricochet podcast and you
listening. If you like it, go to Ricochet and sign up and join if you will, and take advantage of all the other great podcasts in the Ricochet Audio Network. Happy March. We'll see you later, guys. Thanks James, Thanks bye bye Ricochet. Yeah, join the Conversation