In hour 2 of The Armstrong & Getty Show:
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio the George Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty.
Arm Strong and Jetty and now he.
Armstrong and Jetty brand new claims by Democratic Senator and Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin the US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has.
Taken more trips than previously known in the dime of Republican megadon or Harlan Crowe. Durbin claims that Thomas flew on Crow's private jet during trips within the United States in twenty seventeen, twenty nineteen, twenty twenty one, as well as on a previously known twenty nineteen trip to Indonesia, where Thomas and his wife stayed on Crow's mega yacht. Senator Durbin says Thomas did not disclose these trips on his financial forums. It is a question as to whether or not the rules were as clear cut then as they are now.
So I don't know anything about those stories. I have to admit I haven't spent a second looking into the whole Justice Thomas taking trips or getting favors from rich people. Think I do know this part of it though nobody has come up with a single decision that you could even come close to claiming he went against his normal legal philosophy in an opinion that you could tie to some money, which is what you should really be worried about. I guess the main point being that there is such an attempt to attack, particularly the right leaning justices right now and kind of disqualify the current court in people's minds. The whole Alito things we all know, with the flags and whatnot. I was trying to find it again. I remember there's an opinion piece. Was it in the Wappole or the New York Times. I was trying to find it again, But it was Samuel Alito's theocracy and how we can stop it? What based on that recording the other day where that woman said I wish we were more godly? He said, yeah, that would be nice. I mean, that's all he said. Samuel Alito's theocracy is what you come up with out of that. Anyway, there is a real effort out there because the Trump because the Supreme Court leans right for the first time in a long time, there's such an effort to disqualify it in the minds of voters. Maybe we'll talk about the Supreme Court in general in a couple of particular cases with our friend. We used to call Tim the Lawyer. Now we call him Tim Sandifer because he's a national treasure. According to George will of The Washington Post, Tim is the vice president of litigation for the Goldwater Institute. He's got a bunch of books. We'll mention at some point. Tim, welcome back to the Armstrong and Getty Show.
Hey, thanks for having me back.
How's your life.
Well, I've got a little bit of a summer cold, but otherwise doing pretty well. It's Supreme Court season, so this is the time of year when I'm up early, refreshing my Twitter feed over and over again, then getting disappointed and having to wait a few more days.
Uh really, So you're that into like pretty much each and every decision that comes out.
Well, not really, but there are some real blockbusters that are coming. There's the free speech case, the net choice, there's the Lower Bright case, which is the big administrative state case. And of course there's the big homelessness case that we expect to be decided within the next two weeks.
Yeah, that is huge.
How many cases does the Supreme Court take every year roughlycher.
Than one hundred. I think the number I've most often heard is about eighty, which is about one percent of all of the cases that they are asked to take. So it is very unusual to get a case in front of the Supreme Court. It's a big deal, and it's most cases are decided at the circuit court level. That's the appellate court in the middle that not a lot of people pay much attention to what they do. The Ninth Circuit, of course, which does crazy things, but other circuit people don't pay that much attention to it, and it's a shame because they wield a lot of power.
Well, I think yeah, I think it's fair to say you're an expert on the judicial system, certainly compared to the layman. And based on the fact that the Supreme Court takes one percent of the cases they're asked to take, are we over emphasizing the role of just that court in America?
I think so, especially if we're doing it at the expense of paying attention to what happens at the circuit level. Because the circuits, you know, like the Ninth Circuit, what rules over California, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, Hawaii, Alaska, Montana. So that's an enormously powerful court and they decide far more cases than the US Supreme Court. And I think it's that we need to pay much more attention to those courts. And frankly, we have too few judges and too few courts. I think we ought to split up the Ninth Circuit and these other circuits in the smaller unit so that we can exercise better oversight over them.
Well, like when those decisions are made by the Ninth Circuit, for instance, that's often just three.
Judges, right, Yes, that's right.
So you got three people for that giant area making a decision when well, obviously a two to one decision carries the day.
Have two people, it doesn't seem like enough.
Right, and with very little oversight. I mean because in theory the court can overrule itself, but it rarely does that. And so these federal judges are extremely powerful, which is not a knock against them. It's just saying that, you know, if we don't pay attention to what they do, we're not constantly focusing on Washington, d C. It's just the same thing, like we're always focusing on Congress and not paying enough attention to what goes on in our state legislatures, which really have enormous power to do all sorts of crazy stuff.
Yeah, I know lots of people that could regularly name all nine current Supreme Court justices, but I know no, hardly anybody who could name a single justice on the level just below them.
Where do those justices or their state Supreme court?
Right? Oh yeah, obviously who appoints the justice on the circuit courts the.
Same way as the US Supreme Court is appointed by the President and confirmed by Congress. With one little twist, which is that there's an old Senate rule. It's kind of an unwritten rule, but it's that if the if the senators from your home state don't like you, they can block your appointment to the Court of Appeals called the blue slit process. And that's why you will notice that some states have very rarely does a judge come out of that state who's politically you know, one way or the other, because the senators exercised veto control over those appointees.
How are we supposed to look at rulings from any court, whether you look at the Hunter Biden thing, the other day or the big Dobbs abortion thing or whatever. Is the right thing to do as a good American to to to accept the the justice's decision, and I don't know, vote vote a different way if you don't agree.
With it or with what I'll tell you what your duty as a good American is to do, and that is to read the opinions. This is a sore subject for me because it drives me up the wall to hear people complain about decisions from judges and then you ask them if they've read the decisions and their answer is no. It happens constantly. People are constantly complaining, oh, Justice Thomas, no Justice Alito, etc. And they then we just ask them which part of the opinion specifically did you read and disagree with And they will eventually admit that they haven't actually read the opinion. They just didn't like the outcome. And that drives me crazy because the idea that the court system is somehow you know, undemocratic or not transparent is a complete myth. The court tells you exactly why it's doing what it's doing, sometimes in hundreds of pages of explanation posted online where everybody can read it. You find me a congressman who's going to sit down and write you a one hundred page essay on why he voted the way he did on some bill or others. That's way less transparent. The legislative and executive branches are far less transparent than the court system. And yet we're always hearing about how undemocratic the judges are when the judges are pointed in the same way that the Secretary of State is appointed or the Secretary of Commerce, and we don't ever say they're undemocratic. No, if you want to understand the court system and the law, you sit down and you read the opinions, and stop being lazy and getting your opinions handed down to you from reporters at Fox or zn N who also themselves have probably only skimmed the opinion at best. Now, as you can tell, this is a source subject.
Well.
First of all, that tone of voice was what I was trying to get to. I know, I've got you wound up when you have that tone of voice. So I was slowly trying to wind you up and pick a sore spot and poke you with a stick to get you all wound up.
And I found really usually you could only do that by mentioning sports.
But that's an excellent point, and not to mention the fact that the ruling often has nothing to do with the way it's For instance, if I'm correct about this, because I didn't look into this much, but the ruling yesterday on the whether or not you can take the abortion pill was because they said the people didn't have standing. It wasn't a judgment about whether abortion pills are okay.
That's right, and it was unanimous, that's right. And so the discussion recording in the country.
Yeah, the discussion all day long law, the discussion all day long on the cable news channels was all about whether or not this Supreme Court believes you should have birth control or whether abortion's okay.
And it had nothing to do with that. Really, it was just standing, that's right.
The reporting about law in this country is the second worst journalism that there is. The worst of all is reporting about science, but the second worst reporting in the in the country is about law. It's virtually always it's the truth is the opposite of what the reporter says.
It is. It's maddening. Yeah, well yeah, and it's got to be.
It's maddening for me and I barely understand it, so it's got to really be maddening for you. So that's an interesting idea about read the opinions.
You're right.
So the other day you probably followed this, or maybe it didn't, the woman who secretly recorded Alito and Justice Roberts, and that was looked as an amazing glimpse into the secret world of the mind of the Supreme Court justices. And as you pointed out, they write hundreds of pages about what they think all the time.
And it's frustrating too, because there are legitimate grounds on which to criticize the work of Justices Alito or Robert so the others. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to say, you know, why you think they're wrong about something or other, and instead we get this bs any and when it was clearly it's just a situation where he's trying to be polite in the world, right, And you know we all have. If you've ever been to a cocktail party or anything, you know how it is people come up to you and they say things that you know, are you disagree with or you find objectionable. But it's like, why you want to be polite? Anyway, it's just insane.
Hmm, Yeah, that's funny.
Does it bother you that the Supreme Court has gone from It's like there's only two institutions that are above water right now in terms of people having respect for it. The military is at the top, then the Supreme Court. But the Supreme Court is barely above fifty percent now as it's been torn down little by little.
By both sides.
But I feel like, particularly now by the mainstream media, since support leans right, are you worried about that?
Not?
Really. I don't put a lot of stock in those kind of polls. For one thing, they change very very much over the you know, you pull somebody after a decision comes out that they don't like in the one way, and then the next day they change their mind when a decision comes out that they do like. And what you need is long term trends to even judge that sort of thing. But no, I'm not really bothered by that, And I think and I think most Americans actually they know that they don't understand or haven't spent time reading these opinions, and when they when you actually try and drill down on it, they will concede that there's there's merit to a lot of what the Court does, which is not to say that that the Court is always right. I mean, I disagree with a lot of the things that the Supreme Court says, but at least I read it first.
As you mentioned, there's a couple of big homeless decisions coming down in the next cup weeks. We will definitely have you to talk on about the result when that comes out. But there's a current situation in the area of the country you live in with the cops and how they're handling street people.
We want to talk about that when we come back. I hope you can stay here.
Sure.
Tim has written a number of fantastic books, Frederick Douglas's Self Made Man, The Permission Society, The Right to Earn a Living, A Conscience of Constitution, and his most recent Freedom's Furies. I'd like to have you on some time, Tim, to talk about the world of book publishing. I was just looking at this headline book publishing in crisis, as self help and airport fiction dominate. I'm worried about the world of books, but I don't want to take up all our time on that. Tell us this story about homeless in the cops.
Well, the Department of Justice yesterday issue a report at a press conference accusing the Phoenix police of engaging in excessive force and civil rights by violations, particularly against the homeless population. And you know, the homelessness problem in Phoenix has been quite severe in the past several years. We had an enormous homeless encampment of about one thousand people living in tents on streets in downtown Phoenix because the city just told them that they could. And there were a lawsuit over that where a judge said that was illegal and ordered them to clean it up. But of course the left doesn't like that, and so no surprise, the Biden administration comes out and accuses the cops of mistreating the homeless. And I have not read the report. I'm sure that there are some instances in there that are true. But the most remarkable statement that was made at the press confers distinct is federal investigators said homeless people made up thirty seven percent of arrests between twenty sixteen and twenty twenty two, even though they're less than one percent of the city's population. But so, what do you expect the homeless population to commit crimes at the same rate as the ordinary population as me. That's ridiculous. Of course, the homeless even more like to commit crimes, so of course they're more likely to be arrested. Is this is the basis of bringing an accusation of unfairness, then this report can have no credibility, and instead what we need is we obviously the police ought to treat homeless people like everybody else, humanly and with respect for their constitutional rights. But the idea that they should be arrested at the same proportionate rate as any other A child would see through this reasoning. And yet this is being put forward by the Federal Department of Justice in an effort apparently an effort to take over the policing of Phoenix at the federal level, which would be just a disastrous idea.
Wow, and I know the Supreme Court is ruling on a couple of big homeless cases. Do you feel like the pendulum reached the end and is swinging back towards sanity on the street person problem?
I do.
I certainly hope so, because what happened The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal said it was cruel and unusual punishment to arrest people for sweeping in public parks or public sidewalks unless there are enough government provided shelter beds to house them. And nothing in the Constitution and says anything like that. The Constitution does not say that the government is required to give everybody a bed or otherwise allow them to trespass on other people's property and p and defecate on the streets and all this sort of thing. And yet that's the decision, as we said, but from these federal courts of appeals that are so powerful, and that's the question before the US Supreme Court. I'm pretty confident that the Supreme Court is going to overturn that and say no, it does not by like cruel and unusual punishment to arrest somebody for sleeping illegally in a public park just because the government has failed to provide them with a somewhere else to stay. You know, I understand the need for compassion. I've had people in my own family who have been homeless and have died on the streets even so I know how traumatic and horrible that experience can be. But the reality is that you have got to treat people as being responsible for their own choices, and that means they get to enjoy the benefits of their wise choices and suffer the penalty for their bad ones. If you're not willing to let people suffer the penalties of bad choices, then you cannot have freedom. It's as simple as that. If you believe in freedom, you have to believe in letting people enjoy the benefits of good choices and suffer the cost of bad ones. It's as simple as that.
And that's fantastic and well said, and we might record that and play it over and over again. But obviously, if the ruling went the other way, you're basically deciding there's a constitutional right to shelter exactly, or.
A constitutional right to sleep in the public park, or sleep on a sidewalk in front of somebody's house, or to put up a tent next to somebody's business and you know, go in there and scare the customers and frighten your employees and so forth. No, that's utterly insane. And yet this is the less approach to everything. Is you have a constitutional right to everything except freedom.
Tim Sander for Vice President of Litigation the Goldwater Institute. Follow him on Twitter. Is a good follow and we always like having you. Tim on and the listeners always like it. So thanks for your time today.
Thanks Jack.
I'd say a happy Father's Day, but you're adamantly anti child.
So we got more on the way, stay with us, Armstrong and Geeddy.
Well, bump stocks are legal again according to the Spring Court.
That ruling just came down. We'll talk about that in a little bit.
Which on the heels of talking to Tim, it's a good example. People are gonna look at this like it was a second Amen gun rights thing, and it wasn't. It was a raining in the power of agencies to declare this or that ruling, as I'm reading about it in the New York Times. Anyway, more on that in a little bit. Don't want to be too thorny and in the weeds on a Friday, heading into Father's Day. I doubt there's a father or he doesn't even know he's a father, maybe involved in this ridiculous story.
Here we go, I'm running past the Panera bread and then I hear her just let out this good wrenching screen. I'm still painting. I'm like, big, say something and there she's like, oh my god, I just had a baby, And I was like, Okay, no, there's no way. And I picked her up. I wrapped her in my shirt. She hadn't let out a cry or anything yet boy or girl. I was like, it's a girl, hang up and car now one one And next thing I know, I was here to Dad's.
That's a woman who had no idea she was pregnant and was that the panera bread and uh and to drop the baby out of her apparently completely shocked and it sounds.
Like the baby is okay, a little girl. Jeez, I need to know more. I'd say, we need much much more information on this. Is this possible?
Somebody can dig into this and maybe later in the show we'll get more information, because I need no more about this woman in her situation.
Uh.
I mean, I know cryptic pregnancies can happen where a bunch of things happen within the woman's body and you just don't know.
But also there's the excessive weight.
That a woman is holding that can prevent her from knowing that she's pregnant because you don't show.
So there was a TV show for a while I was pregnant and didn't know it. Remember that was a reality and it focused on lots of women who had babies and had no idea they were pregnant, which for most women I know who have carried a baby to term and given birth, it was like dominated their lives and obvious for like nine months.
Well more so than men.
Women have a tendency to be more in touch with our bodies, like when you feel something's off right away.
That's why we're always the ones that you can call the doctor, you know.
So when your body's going through such a huge change like a pregnancy, you'd think you'd feel a couple of things going on.
Well, all kinds of different things happen, but oftentimes that TV show, I was pregnant and I didn't know it. As you alluded to, the woman was on the larger side. So if you're two hundred and fifty pounds, a five pound being inside you is not as noticeable as if you're one hundred and twenty pounds and a five pound being is inside you, being like it could be something else, a puppy or a fish.
A baby.
What you got there, Samon? Anyway, Good god, thank god, the kid's all right. Yes, Michael, I've got some information for you. I can't thank you, st thank you. Here's our reporter Michael Angelo.
They say, doctors say that she may have experienced what was called a cryptic pregnanty goal.
I'd never heard that term until two minutes ago when Katie said it.
Yeah, well apparently late you don't notice symptoms until late late, late in the term.
And I'm looking at this woman.
She's regular size, she's not obese or anything like that, and really, yeah, this may just be one of those really strange things.
Yeah, because I know a friend of mine had a cryptic pregnancy and it was like false pregnancy tests and everything.
She is God, now, I didn't know that. You know, it doesn't even show up in the pregnancy test.
No, And she she was having irregular periods each month and was going going like what the heck's going on? So she was taking pregnancy tests and they all came back negative and then she found out I think at six and a half months that she was actually pregnant.
Well, was she in a position where she was wanting to have a baby, like, yeah, I mean they weren't. I mean, it wasn't like actively trying.
She's married, and if they had a baby, it wouldn't have been a huge you know.
Yeah, but yeah, yeah, yeah.
Yeah, I remembered, and she was confused as hell for until she found out that she was Legitimately she was like, oh, I'm actually pregnant.
Yeah, I mean that situation obviously is much better than the you find out you're seven months pregnant, and yeah, who was I with seven months ago?
Er start making charts, winding up names and dates. I got to make a phone call because somebody's got to pay for this thing.
Oh again, this thing like it could be a puppy or a fish, it's a baby.
Anything else we know about this person?
Michael, No, it just says here nos, like Katie said, no sign or symptoms.
Kid was okay, though, kid was great. Yeah, that's amazing.
Yeah, she's holding the baby and she's, like I said, she looks like she's in good health and and.
It sounds like there's a supportive father in the picture. So this is a happy story. This is a happy story.
And Panera bread plays a role somehow, I don't know, No, maybe maybe just logistically happen to be nearby, perfectly good sour door bread. Well, that is a happy story, and it's not one of those how could you be so stupid?
Stories?
I learned today there is something called a cryptic pregnancy, and it has nothing to do with the fact that you are such a moron and out of touch with your entire life that you didn't know you were pregnant, which is what I've always assumed.
Right, You're not stupid and fat.
This is a real thing that happened, right right, Much more charitable view than the SNF version of these stories. So that's fantastic. Heading into Father's Day weekend, Let's get there, you know.
While we're while we're well, while we're on.
The because we just got pretty thorny with tam and Supreme Court and various cases and that sort of thing. And I'm gonna explain the whole bump Stock ruling here this next segment. Let's do one more dumb story. Can you play clip number eleven?
The night clerk was accepting ground beef as payment for a room.
We've been working with their corporate headquarters because their corporate headquarters at last conversation we had that location does not meet their industry branding standards. Oh really, Okay, So it turns out there's this Motel six in Nebraska where one employee was caught accepting ground beef ground beef for payment for its rooms.
Have you seen ground beef prices right now? Yeah? Valuable, that's a valuable trade. I'm not exactly sure.
Well it's hilarious, but I'm not exactly sure why it's illegal or wrong or you should get fired, I suppose because you can't. So it's how much is the room eighty nine dollars? I don't have eighty nine dollars. I got twenty dollars and four pounds of eighty percent lean ground.
I'll take it. If you make it ninety thirty, I'll take it. That's fantastic.
And of course the problem is you can't take the burger and put it in the computer and have the money go off to corporate.
So I guess that's the problem.
I want to know who the guy was that was commenting on that, so seriously.
Right exactly exactly, if you're willing to trade a room for ground beef. You know, I miss the You have to be a certain age to know this, but I miss the old days of a hotel, the way.
It used to work.
Katie, you don't know this.
This is like pre everybody having a credit card and preeing everything being on a computer. You'd show up to a hotel and they had a board behind them with all the room keys on hooks, and if there were still keys hanging on a hook, there were rooms left. If there weren't, all the rooms are taken. And I'd say, so you got three rooms, and they'd say, yeh, looks like it. And I'd say, I'll take that one, room six, And they hang you the key and you give them twenty five dollars or whatever, and you want to your room. And it was just so simple, and you didn't. They didn't type for twenty minutes with every bit of information about your life and uh, and I had a key card that probably isn't gonna work when I get down there, and just.
All that sort of stuff. I just didn't get double booked.
No, of course not. There's one key, the key is being used. I love I missed those days. I think that was better. I actually think that was better. And probably back then you could have traded ground beef for room six if you wanted to.
Not a joe.
You know, I thought I was gonna eat two hammers. I only ate one.
I got a little beef left over. You have any interest in that sure what else you got, h I got an old fishing rod. Okay, fishing rod and the beef. The room is yours. That's the way life should work. America a barter society. What does the Supreme Court ruling about bumpstocks mean? I don't know how I feel about this in terms of safety America's Second Amendment. I'll have to noodle that through. But bumpstocks are legal again. You could have gone to prison for owning one or selling one up until today. I guess bumpstocks are legal again. According to the Spree. Court will run through some of the details on that coming up next.
A major setback for Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gerskovich, who will now face trial for espionage, indicted with absolutely no evidence presented on charges he was spying for the CIA charges the US, his family and employer vehemently deny. The thirty two year old Gerskovich has already spent more than a year in a Russian prison while appealing the charges. Laying out specific allegations for the first time, accusing Gerskovich of gathering secret information about a Russian facility that produces and repairs military equipment.
The wheels of justice turned slowly in the United States. The wheels of justice in the Russia turn, however, Putin wants them to turn. And I'm surprised I haven't heard anybody put these two stories together. I don't know why Putin's being so provocative right now, but I think the sending the warships and the submarine right off the coast of Florida. We reported that yesterday, Yeah, there's Russian warships in Cuba, which is ninety miles from Florida, and then the day after saying, yeah, we're gonna charge this Wall Street Journal American reporter with espionage and maybe put him in prison foreverywhere. Of course he could die. He's pokiness for some reason. I don't know why, puting his pokeness, but I assume those two things go together. So there's been a Supreme Court ruling. It has just come down on bump stocks. Do you remember what bump stocks are? We all first learned about them, or most of us first learned about them in twenty seventeen, after that horrific Las Vegas mass shooting in which that guy was up in the room of that hotel at the MGM. Right, yeah, man, So I was at the MGM, I talked about this. I think it was last year with my kids, and I hadn't thought about that story in a long time, and I go to the window of my room and I had this weird feeling. It's like, what am I thinking about? And it was because it was the same view that we all saw a gazillion times after that story when that guy shot he killed almost sixty people at that concert across the street from the MGM, and like wounded two hundred or something. Anyway, I'd seen that view so many times on the news after that. When I was standing in my room looking out the window, I was like, what am I thinking?
Oh?
Yeah, And then I googled it and yeah, I was like a floor below looking the same direction as what that guy was.
That room's no longer available for obvious reasons.
H But anyway, the way he managed to shoot so many people so quickly was he had a bump stock. It's a piece of rubber, plastic or metal you put on the end of a rifle and then when you shoot the gun, there's recoil. If you've ever shot a gun, it bumps up against your arm. Well, if you have something that can cause it to bounce off of your arm. The bounce puts the trigger against your finger, and you can just hold your finger stick ill and the gun basically bounces back and forth of that bump stock between your shoulder and your trigger, and you can fire at least, according to this article, four hundred or more times per minute. And one of the questions was that does that well, so Trump immediately after that, because the country was, you know, first of all, horrified at sixty people dying at once from this nut job, and we all learned about bump stocks, and you know, should those exist or they anyway, Trump immediately found a way to ban them, had them classified under the machine gun law. You're not allowed to own a machine gun in the United States as a regular person, and they had it classified under that, and so they were made illegal. And so anybody selling or possessing a bump stock after that was committing a felony. Well, that was challenged. This is not a Second Amendment case, as I understand it from the New York Times. It's a do various agencies have this power case, So it'd be about raining in various agent season department's power as opposed to any Second Amendment ruling. According to The New York Times, I don't quite understand that, since it's about whether or not I guess a lot of the questioning from the justices was whether or not a bump stock makes it basically a machine gun, so it falls under the jurisdics of a machine gun. AnyWho, Boy, that day, it sure sounded like a machine gun. Yeah, and it certainly certainly operated like a machine gun. So I don't quite understand that. As Tim Sandervers said earlier this hour, don't make comments about these things until you've read the opinions. But the lead opinion was written by Clarence Thomas and bump stocks in a six ' three decision. I'm glad at six three. I hate five four decisions. But a six to three decision has decided that no, they didn't have the that they didn't have the power to do that, and bump stocks are legal again. Now, maybe there'll be a Second Amendment challenge around that at some point, and they'll have to take a look at it from that point standpoint.
But you know, the response that day that that shooting happened out of them was incredible. Law I had several friends there and one of my Vegas they were at they were they were at the concert.
They were at the concert Jason Aldanah, Yeah, they were at the concert at Jason Aldeen.
My buddy Mark, who's who's a marine, God, he's a marine. He was there and he said he heard the first couple rounds go off and immediately knew that it was it was firepower, and he got his entire group of people and got them out of there that day. But he said that the sheer amount of chaos, and you have all of these people, you don't know where this is coming from, so everybody's running in different directions.
You don't know what's running toward it or from it exactly.
But the law enforcement response and the amount, you know, you think of the clientele for a country concert. There were a lot of marines, law enforcement stuff there and they all just kicked into gear.
That was such.
There have been way too many shootings as we all know, over the last many years, but that one in the kindergarten and first grade one are the only two that like stand out as I remember where I was when I heard it type of stories, and that Las Vegas one, I remember it was. I think it was a Sunday night, and I was at home and when that story first hit, It's.
Like, holy crap, right, So, uh, Trump.
Understanding politics and then you know national whims the way he does. He immediately jumped on banning those bump stocks, which politically was was good for him and I and I, yeah, I'm a I'm a Second Amendment guy. I own a handful of guns, a number of them. I probably should know how many, but uh, i'd have to look in the safe. But I'm pro gun, but I don't know if I think this is something that needs to exist, So I would have to I'd have to listen to some smarter people than me explain that to me.
Anyway, they're back on the market.
And I assume this will be treated all day long in the media, which, as Tim pointed out earlier this hour coincidentally, the average on Supreme Court rulings is horrible on legal rulings, And I'll bet you it's going to be covered as a Second Amendment thing, a gun thing, all day long, when it was a does this agency have the power to do this thing? Not a should this be legal under the Second Amendment thing? And so there you go, what are you going to do about it. We're going to talk next hour with one of my favorite reporters from the Washington Post, Josh Rogan, about what's going on re Taiwan and China. We probably should get into a little Israel Hamas is that war continues to heat up. It's getting a hotter on a daily basis. And also the President speaking about Russia and Ukrainia today standing next to President Zelensky and for some reason being asked questions about Hunter, even though he was talking about a couple of wars, which the President got a little angry about that said, come on, man, you know we're here to talk about and how often that's a dodge, not in this case. Come on, media, these wars are a big deal, and how much we support them, and how much weaponry we send him, and how much taxpayer money. Who freaking cares about the whether or not he pardons Hunter. If he does, he does, and they'll get the political fallout. But man, you've got a chance to ask in that setting about our support or not for Ukraine in a war that could you know, blow up into World War three at any moment. Ask him about that, not about whether or not he's going to commute Hunters sentence.
God, dang it. I hate the media. They suck so hard.
It's just frustrating because they are their priorities are so bass ackwards when it comes to what they report.
If Joe were here, he'd say their priorities are what's going to get the most clicks, and they feel like that would get the most clicks, and they're probably right. President Biden says he may commute son would get more clicks than anything about the war in Ukraine, even though the level of how consequential they are, you know, aren't even close. Well, I hope nobody listening right now is pregnant and doesn't know it. And we've got the or his trading meat for hotel rooms, and we've got more on the way Armstrong and Getty