Episode 27: Soros DA Chesa Boudin Gets Bounced; Washington Post Descends Into Chaos; Russia Update and Gas Prices Hit Record High; Peter Navarro Arrested & Man Tries to Assassinate Justice Kavanaugh

Published Jun 9, 2022, 9:00 AM

0:57 - Radical Progressive District Attorney Chesa Boudin is recalled in a landslide. What does mean for the "criminal justice reform" movement? Was it all a fraud?

15:37 - Washington Post descends into a civil war over reporter Dave Weigel RT'ing a stupid joke....and resident witch Felicia Somnez having a week-long tantrum. 

24:09 - The Russian military seems to be consolidating wins while the US goes into month 4 of record gas prices. Is our bet on Ukraine paying off?

35:59 - Former guest Peter Navarro is arrested for defying Jan 6th committee subpoena, and a man is arrested with weapons near the home of Justice Bret Kavanaugh...and the media doesn't seem too interested. 

Calvary Audio, Ladies and Gentlemen is June nine, two twenty two. I am at Polinski. This is your weekly dose of sanity, the prevailing narrative. So it is June. We're almost into summer, and one thing that we have this summer, we don't usually have our elections. We had them in California, Los Angeles. Yes, I've been talking about this a lot. I'm sure you've had it up to here with me talking about l A and California stuff. But it's important and it's really a bell weather for a lot of things that are going on in society and culture. One person who recognized this a political commentator named Ronald Brownstein. Um, he's written forever. He used to be very much a writer for the l A. Times. I remember his work when I was younger. But now he's writing for CNN. Wrote a piece called California is about to experience a political earthquake. Here's why. Okay, So let's see what he thinks will be this political earthquake. An earthquake is building in Tuesday's California elections that could rattle the political landscape from coast to coast in Los Angeles and San Francisco, to of the nation's most liberal large cities, voters are poised to send stinging messages of discontent over mounting public disorder, as measured in both upticks and certain kinds of crime and pervasive homelessness. That dissatisfaction could translate into the recall of San Francisco's left leaning district Attorney Chessa Boudin, likely by a resounding margin, and a strong showing in that Los Angeles mayor All primary by Rick Caruso, a billionaire real estate developer and former Republican who has emerged as a leading alternative in the race to Democrat US Rep. Karen Bass, once considered the front runner. UM, that's exactly what happened. One, Rick Caruso put in a very good showing as of today, where there's still a bunch of absentee ballots to count. Rick came in with a little over forty UM. And why while that it does not one does not win him the election outright, it still goes to the runoff in November against Karen and you some people could point to the fact that Karen Bass at about thirty five percent plus Kevin da Leone, who's also very liberal who came in third place. That overall the liberal it's called it anti Caruso vote still uh added up to a total higher than the Crusoe vote. But everyone, here's something that will forget. Crusoe got into this race about three and a half months ago. He didn't even start the campaign until about mid February. He's gone from five percent to about forty two percent and barely even three months. So that's definitely a bell weather. It's definitely a telling sign. But once again, most of these elections in l A and California yesterday we're primary, so they're all about leading up to the actual run off, the actual election in November. A bunch of them are going to be a dogfight. Okay, So what was conclusiony yesterday? Chessa Boudin, the San Francisco district attorney, a radical decarcerationist any which way you slice it, very proudly states that he wants to reform the entire criminal justice system. Will get to a little bit of his background in a second, but he got bounced and it was not close. This is San Francisco, ladies and gentlemen. This is the most liberal city, big city in America. And they voted him out two to one. He lost by over twenty points, a resounding statement in favor of a return to more common sense, traditional practices around criminal justice. Okay, so what does this mean? What happened here? Chessi Boudine? Okay, this guy. A lot of people throw around the term communist very halfheartedly. I don't. I don't like throwing around communist socialists. I think they have loaded meanings. But this guy, this is fairly it's a fairly accurate description. He has been a fan of Venezuela communist president Hugo Chavez. He was a translator for Chavez, has written wrote in his earlier days, um, very loudatory about jabez Um and this was his parents are. His mom went to jail. His parents went to jail for years. They were part of a liberal terrorist organization called the Weather Underground back in the sixties. Um, and they are convicted terrorists and murders. And I would imagine that that informs Chest's thoughts on criminal justice and criminality. Essentially, that criminals should not be punished, and the tried and true wisdom of protecting innocent people by incarcerating criminals is just not something he was really into um. Let's look a little bit more at his background. After law school, Boudin served as a law clerk to Margaret McCowen. In two thousand and fifteen, Boudin began working full time at San Francisco Public Defender's Office as a deputy public to offender. While there, he argued on behalf the officers clients at the California bail system is unconstitutional. Okay, So what's the bail system. It is pre trial incarceration. So before you have a right to a speedy trial, but before your trial, you can be incarcerated if you are a threat. Uh, if you are considered based on at least the likelihood that you are a threat to yourself or others, and that will be measured by bail. Obviously higher bail um from more serious cases and lower bail for less serious ones. But the idea of being that you know, in the absence of an actual trial, we have to make a determination as to we have to put some sort of consequence to a person not showing up for trial and just skipping out in between when they've been led out of prison and when their trial is and so we attach bail to that, and Mr Boudine wants to say that that is discriminatory against those who don't have financial resources because they simply can't afford bail, But that ignores the fact that the judge puts that the judge takes that into consideration, ability to pay. It is one of the factors that goes into the bail system. But hey, chess, it doesn't think that bail is a good idea. It's also pretty telling. At Boudine's election party, one of his supporters led a chant of funck the p o A. What is the p o A? The Police Officers Association, which fought hard against Boudine's election, which he won with only thirty six percent of the vote because they have a ranked voting system, so he did not win a majority in the first place, and there was a low turnout election back in two thousand nineteen. And uh, I don't know, you know, but Boudin might have misinterpreted um his election and that he had a mandate to go and essentially eviscerate the entire criminal justice system in the city of San Francisco. Um, but that that was what it seemed like his election signaled a kind of real win for progressive, reformist district attorneys who thought there needs to be a new system in place for how we handle criminality, and they felt comfortable saying fuck the Police Officers Association. Seems to be a bad sign when the lead prosecutors supposed to work in association with law enforcement to prosecute and incarceerate those that the police arrest right for crimes. That's the whole idea law and order. I'm sure he's in the show, cops arrest him, the das prosecute them. But this DA felt, you know, it's a little more of the approach of fun the Police officers Association. Okay, well, things didn't go so well in San Francisco. There's an incredible piece on everything having to do with Boudin and this recall election called how San Francisco Became a Failed City. UM. It's by Nelly Balls, and she makes no bones about it. She says she was a supporter of Boudine's that she thought this was a thrilling sign of the evolution of American society, that you know, needed reform was in the works, um, and that Boudine's election was the signal of that. And as you can tell from the name of her piece, things did not work out as planned. Her, along with a lot of other former Boudine supporters, um have realized the error of their ways and supported the recall. Here's what Nellie Balls had to say about it. Chessa wanted to break the cycle of recidivism by addressing the social causes of crime, poverty, addiction, mental health. Boudin was selling revolution and San Francisco was ready in theory, but not in fact. Because it turns out that the people on the left also owned property and generally believe stores should be paid for the goods they sell, it has become no big deal to see someone stealing in San Francisco. Videos of crimes and process go viral fairly off. One from last year shows a group of people fleeing an Emon Marcus with goods and broad daylight. Other show people grabbing what they can from drugstores and walking out. When a theft happens in a Walgreens or a CBS, there's no big chase the cashiers or blase about it. I'll after I'll of deodorant in shampoo are under lock and key press a button for the attendant to get your dish soap okay, So it seems like and this is part of the conversation about what's the meaning of the Bootine recall because he lost, so this was a lancelid. He lost by over twenty points, and some people want to go with the analysis. This is not really a statement on criminal justice reform. This is just this is confined to Chessa in particular, that he was a uniquely irresponsible and uniquely bad prosecutor. But and while he was a uniquely bad prosecutor with a uniquely broken philosophy and approach towards crime and public safety, and what if not if if reform is not what Chessa did, then what is reform? Right? And the whole idea is that, you know, we have a mass quote unquote mass incarceration problem, and that we we put too many people in jail. But if you if there's a lot of crime, you gotta put a lot of people in jail, right, So if you're not, if you're if your only goal is to reduce incarceration, then you can't be there trying to match the levels of crime to the levels of incarceration. That if there is high crime, well you're not you're going to have to not prosecute some of it because that will inherently lead to mass incarceration. So someone needs to square that circle. For me, if this is not a comment on the criminal justice system in general, then then what is it right If if the the reformists, if those who want criminal justice reformed, don't want what Chessa Boudine served up, then what do they want? Because as we see, there's a lot of myths around, you know, our criminal justice system. There's a myth that there are a lot of people in prison for long sentences for non violent drug related offenses. But that's that's simply not a fact. That's simply not true. Go and look it up. The vast majority of people in prison are either one repeat offenders or two violent offenders. So this whole idea that someone got twenty years for a dime bag without intent to sell, I mean, that's simply not true. Um, beyond that, if you want to lower you know, as Chessa and some of his reformist d as, particularly George Gascon, believe that no matter how bad the crime, life sentences are simply in humane. That even if someone committed you know, multiple homicide Hey, you know, years they've done their time, if they're on good behavior, they've shown that they should re enter society. So if you don't believe that, then what is reform? Someone needs to explain to me what criminal justice reform is. If it's not getting rid of cash bail, if it's not reducing sentences even for violent criminals, if it's not treating repeat offenders as first time offenders, because that's another thing that Boudin did, right. The whole idea is like, okay, you know something, your first offense, we might take it easy on you if it's not something that resulted in permanent damage, if it's not murder, rape, serious assault, your first offense, we're gonna treat you differently as if you come back, you get one chance. That's a bit of a lighter sentence. But Boudine he would keep on charging repeat offenders as first time offenders. So if criminal justice reform isn't that, what is it? I'm gonna need someone to explain that me. Um. Beyond that, you know, people are wondering, okay, what specific If people still want reform, then what exactly turned them off so much about CHESSA Boudin and part of it, and I think this was a lot more telling, and it goes to what Ronald Brownstein was acknowledging and identifying is a general sense of disorder, right that between if you look around and it's a variety of factors. And here's the thing, they're not all the fault of guys like Chessa Boudine. I went to San Francisco for the first time in a while, I think in late two thousand sixteen, this is before boudin uh was was elected. George Gascon was the d A at that time. I mean, I was shocked. I could not believe the degree of homelessness and not you know, necessarily these are newly gentrified areas, you know, the types of areas that yes had been relatively low income through the too you know, nineties and two thousand's, but now had all the trendy restaurants and nightlife, a lot of young people living there. But like, yeah, I understand that those are not necessarily going to be the fanciest areas, but the levels of homelessness and and disorder were just shocking, right, And these videos of people we all understand that some people commit crimes, always have, always will and some people have the intent to commit crimes, but the degree the ideas that you're gonna have forces pushing back against that right, the people in charge law enforcement, the district attorney, the prosecutors, that they're actually trying to oppose those who want to commit crimes and trying to protect innocent people from them. So I think it's the idea and the feeling that, Okay, whether or not, you know, more people want it, wanted and tried to commit crimes, and let's call call it New York in when crime rates were far higher, let's say more people wanted to commit crimes. At least at that point, it felt like those who were in charge, or at least once New York elected Rudolph Giuliani and kind of turned the corner on public safety, we're trying or making an attempt to oppose the people who wanted to commit crime. For people like Chessa Boudine, if you feel, if the citizens feel that those who are in charge are actually facilitating the criminals or simply not opposing them, then you're gonna get this kind of reaction. And I think that's what you're seeing um specifically in regards to some of these district attorneys and just the kind of general mill you political tenor in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and that people have had enough of this. And if even we can look at crime rates and say, okay, crime was still higher twenty five years ago, but you people, what we need to get crime as low as it can be, and you're not doing your job to do that. Um. A guy named Charles Fayan Lehman together a pretty good thread UM on his thoughts on Boudin and really what the this reaction was, and as he said, you know, he pointed to disorder again, a shoplifting wave, a vibrant open air drug market, the nation's largest unsheltered homeless population, and endemic public drug use. Right, it's like, not necessarily chessa Boudine's full fault that there's a lot of homelessness in San Francisco, but you add the homelessness together with the fact that he's taking it so light on criminals, and it gives everyone the impression that nobody's at the wheel, that they're not being represented by anybody who's trying to protect their interests, and that's what led to yesterday's result. And also thought on that in terms of property crimes, is that part of the reaction to mass incarceration of the conversation around public safety the last few years, as reform has started to come up, this whole idea behind broken windows policing, and that in the early in the early to mid nineties, as we started to take a tougher stance towards crime, we started to to prosecute either both property crimes and kind of quality of life crimes like broken windows, public urination, public disorder more fiercely. Right, we started to punish those more, and this whole idea that that that's what led to mass incarceration, and then it was not worth the residual effect of lower crime rates. Right, Um, So, okay, is are people now buying that? Everyone started to talk about that. It was a popular sentiment in let's call it during the Donald Trump years in the late twenty tens. That wait a second, we went too far. We incarcerated too many people. Property crimes aren't necessarily you know, don't necessarily have victims, And we can't be locking people up for five years for stealing a bike or something like that. Billy Binion of Reasons seems to believe that once the reality of taking it easier on property crimes came about, that people rejected that right. So, as he says, one of Chessa Boudine's biggest mistakes and a problem with progressive prosecutors generally, is the notion that property crimes are victimless. Property rights are human rights. They are just as if not more important for people struggling to get by, as they are for the rich. Right, and you're you're a person who's you don't have a car, you just have a bicycle. Your bicycle gets stolen, Well, listen, you want that. You want a deterrent effect there. You want a person to be concerned about being punished for stealing your mode of transportation. Right, But the whole oh well, if we we got to get incarceration numbers down, we can't. We can't continue with the era of quote unquote mass incarceration. So the person who stole your bike, as long as they return it or they gave you three hundred bucks to go get a new bike, we're not going to put him in jail. Well, it seems once again the reality of this has not tasted as well as the as it had was in theory that everybody prancing around during the late two thousands and around Black Lives Matter, during the protests and riots it we need to rethink these things. Well, once people got a taste of the reality of Okay, we're not going to put people in jail for property crimes, for stealing bikes, for stealing stuff from CBS. Once the reality set in, they have rejected it. And that was manifested through the recall of Chessa Boudin. So let's take a moment to talk about the modern newsroom, the modern legacy media. Earlier today, a guy I follow on Twitter, Isaiah Carter, always an interesting follow, tweeted out, We're being ruled by week anti social, narcissistic, emotionally disordered people who are afraid of their own fucking shadows. I'm tired of this ship and you should be too. Okay, what was he talking about? Have you guys been following this drama, the saga going on at the Washington Post the last couple of days. Are you familiar with a writer named Felicia Somnez. She is a political writer for the Washington Post. I first encountered this young lady uh right after Kobe Bryant died, and I say right after, I mean literally within about an hour, within an hour, about of Kobe Bryant and his thirteen year old daughter dying in a fiery blaze and a helicopter accident. Felicia Samnez, feminist Queen of the Jungle, felt that it was her duty, it was her job, and she was going to do a right by society by tweeting out a story about Kobe Bryant's rape case. Kobe Bryant's disturbing rape case, the DNA evidence, the accuser story, and half confession, essentially making sure that everybody in the throes of this tragedy, you know, was reminded, Hey, you know, you can't be sympathetic, you cannot feel bad. Do not grieve for Kobe Bryant because he was problematic, even though he had been cleared of that entire case. It was about seventeen years ago. She felt that it was the right time to be talking about Kobe Bryant's rape case. She was ceremoniously suspended by The Washington Post for a month for that, but she did not go quietly into the night. She went would not stop complaining that she was being oppressed, that this was another instance of sexism of misogyny, and she was being punished by the patriarchy because she was suspended for essentially shooting on Kobe Bryant with it while his body was still smoldering at the bottom with his daughter at the bottom of a canyon. Okay, Felicia, She's somehow, despite the kind of low threshold for cancel a determination these days, she somehow survived that controversy and even continued to lambast her employer UM and criticize her employer for it for quite a while now. So she popped up again this week. I know, if you're familiar with the political writer at the Washington Post named Dave Wigel, you know he's sometimes interesting. He's got kind of an irreverent take on politics. I think sometimes he's a little too as we'll see, a little too conciliatory and and dismissive of the problems with modern media UM and the Washington Post. But overall he's okay. Anyways, last week he retweeted a tweet that was out there. Here's the tweet. Uh, A tweet went every girl is by You just have to figure out if it's polar or sexual obviously, ha ha. I don't even think that's a really great joke. I mean it was a you could maybe claim that it was in bad taste for this guy to retweet that, but clearly kind of a tongue in cheek, lighthearted joke. Felicia Somnez, who she did not take too kindly to that to Dave Wigel, her colleague, who might I add, Dave Wigel defended Felicia Samnez. He tweeted out support of support of her in response to her suspension in UH in response to the Kobe Bryant incident, Felicia Somnez, instead of handling this privately going to her employer off Twitter, she tweeted out in response to Wigel, fantastic to work in a news outlet where retweets like this are allowed. Okay, so she aired the Washington Post dirty Laundry in response to that. You know, Wigel took down the post. He gave a groveling apology. Um turns out he gets suspended for a month. Felicia Samnez, she has not been satisfied by that at all. Literally, if you go to her her profile, you go to her Twitter feed. It has been a week now of her incessantly tweeting out about how she is a victim, about how she cannot believe the Washington Post allows her workplace to be this boiling cauldron of sexism and misogyny and the patriarchy still at play. I mean, she's NonStop and in response, obviously at some point those higher ups at the Washington Post have said, Okay, well, maybe other people. Other people. First of all, her colleagues at the Washington Post have very politely, incredibly politely, just tweeted out to her, maybe it's time to lay off here. Maybe one disparaging your employer, those that you work with. Hey, it was just a joke. That does not mean that, you know, essentially your boss the Washington Post smacked your ass and told you to go and make him a cup of coffee. Okay, that's not what happened here. But Felicia, she is not having it. She continues on this tirade about how she is being fault, misinformation is being spread about her and its abuse, and this is what it's like to be a woman in NonStop So this is very telling. How on earth does the Washington Post let this go on? The Washington Post and internal memos have leaked um, with editor Sally Busby of The Washington Post trying to send us saying, hey, we would like to handle these matters in house. We take claims of an uncomfortable workplace very seriously, etcetera, etcetera. But you know, let's try to handle these things in the house. Felicia Snez essentially embarrasses and mocks her editor, mocks her employers um in response to any admonition that how dare you tell her to stop responding to this torrent of use that is raining down upon her? Certainly not that she, you know, brought upon herself for being a complete cry bully of trying to bully her one of her colleagues, and bully everyone who seemed to think that her activities were in bad taste. It's not that at pinpoint meets the definition of what Isaiah Carter mentioned earlier, that we were being ruled by weak, anti social, narcissistic, emotionally disordered people that certainly couldn't describe Felicia nor the prevailing ethos at a newsroom like the Washington Post. This is pathetic. I'd like to kind of, you know, revel and mock the Washington Post and get some enjoyment out of seeing it, you know, because this is this has become a complete pylon. It's Felicia, it's colleagues of hers, it's the editor, and all this is being aired, all this dirty laundry is being aired in plain view, and it's completely embarrassing for what's supposed to be a pretty, you know, respectable and sense making institution. Is the institution that broke Watergate for crying out loud. But it's descended in some sort of child middle school antics. And that's how Barry Weiss described it her peace The Washington Post Descent into middle school, and x Asbury describes it. It began with a joke. Actually it was a retweet of a joke. The Washington Post political reporter retweeted the following joke this past Friday, every girl is by. You just have to figure out if it's polar a sexual. I know what you're thinking, Call the police on this man immediately. I mean, oh my god, the world the sky is falling. In response to that kind of you know, I don't even find the joke that funny whatever, Wigel apologized for the offensive joke later the same day, I apologize and did not mean to cause any harm, but it was already too late. His colleague, Felicia Sanmez had seized on the tweet, starting a public shaming of Wigel. Is the sexist she spent the past few days were posting others calling her a hero, slamming one colleague who was silly enough to defend Wigel, posting about that colleague and tagging the bosses this is what she's This is actually going on on Twitter from a Washington Post political reporter like she's fifteen years old, Oh, and threat and throwing the editors under the bus repeatedly, like there's got to be some sort of order. There must be some sort of chain of command of hierarchy where you cannot just go and bully your bosses in front of everyone, under the threat, under the moral blackmail of being of them being called sexist, or creating a hostile workplace for those who are supposedly marginalized and kind another. If you're able to go bully people like this, how on earth do you consider yourself? How do you claim to be marginalized? You're clearly the one exercise in the power, as san Maz is in this instant as Barry goes on. Never Mind collegiality or handling mindor disputes privately. Never Mind that Wigel quickly took down the post and apologized for the poor taste. Never mind that they were friends and he had actually signed onto a petition in support of her. As she geared up to sue the paper for discrimination, it was Dave Wigel's time to be punished. That's that's how these modern newsrooms operate, folks. This is how liberal. Listen. I don't want to just pile on one side, but Jesus Christ, these newsrooms are overwhelmingly liberal, and they overwhelmingly operate like this. I wish I could say I was surprised by how this is playing out, but no, These institutions now let bad faith, narcissistic personality disorder dripping with personality disorder. Freak shows like Felicia san Maz essentially dictate the morality. They get to bully everyone, and there's no recourse whatsoever. Is does she get reprimanded, Does she get punished or disciplined? Whatsoever? Up till about God two thousand fourteen, You get the boot in two seconds. But they're so scared. I mean, they're gonna win any lawsuit. I have no doubt she You could pay her, you know, offer her severance if there's a severance in her contract, if it's an at will contract, you don't have to prove uh any. She's more than proven that she deserved to be fired. But no, they're so scared of these cry bullies kind of painting them with the label of insensitive or sexist or god knows what, no matter how frivolous and ridiculous the claim that people like Felicia Sims get to go around, prance around and bullieve their bosses like this, and it is absolutely pathetic. And once again, as I was saying, while on the one hand, I'd like to get a kick out of this, this is really a bad sign. It's a bad indicator for where our cultures at and where once it's sense making institutions. People rely on the Washington Post to do good work, to scour the news, to portray truth, to break stories. They rely on this institution for that, and it's no longer trustworthy. It's a joke. Now it's a middle school It's a chaotic middle school joke. And we'll have more of the prevailing narrative after the break, so time to certainly fly, particularly these days in the era of the short attention span. Everybody remember that whole Ukraine Russia conflict. Well, it's still going on, and it's four months in and this thing that was on everybody's mind, it was the top of the news cycle, top of everybody's consciousness, top of a lot of social media pages with Ukrainian flags and things of that nature all through February and March. Seems to have faded from consciousness. But this thing is still going on, and it's not because four months is not really a long time for a war, for a military conflict if you look throughout history, but word month for and it seems like everyone is seemingly forgot about it, at least in terms it's not it's not top of conscious It might be having residual effects, which I'll get to in a second, but people aren't talking about it anymore. And in terms of judging, um, both the Ukraine Russia conflict itself and you know how America's strategic interests are served, you're not served by it. Um. I think it's time to start looking the scorecard a little bit. I had sam O Borea on towards the beginning of the conflict is a specialist in this area, and he said, hey, you know, don't overreact too much to what's going on right now. This type of conflicts, he said, moves at the speed of tanks, not tweets, essentially saying that yes, while the initial Russian military uh initial military performance was underwhelming and seemed to kind of belie some of the assumptions about how this thing would play out, that you know this the Russians historically putin and the Russian military they've got a lot of stamina. They can win battles of attrition, and you know, we're gonna have to be in this one for the long haul. So we're four months in and let's kind of you know, I think it's time to tally up a bit of the scorecard. So looking just at the American situation for a moment um, one thing that we have to acknowledge that a lot of people seem to acknowledge, is that our energy policy is very much dependent on Russia, as I think it was the third top oil producer and at both the American economy and the Western European economy and Vladimir Putin knew this by ramping up oil, by making the West reliant on his oil production for many years, because he's been thinking about this conflict for a long time. So the oil situation, the energy situation in the United States is not looking good. So we're approaching five dollars for a gallon of gas here in the United States, that would be a record. We're at record prices right now. Today in Los Angeles, I paid over seven dollars per gallont I mean, this is insane, right, and this is becoming the new normal. This is massive inflation in a coarse, staple item of every person, something that the vast majority of the population cannot ignore. So this is certainly a leverage point for Vladimir Putin, and everyone seems to just kind of gotten used to it um or it's been manifested in other ways that we've got this crazy and you know, I haven't been seen in thirty years levels of inflation, partially because of gas prices, and nobody seems to be connecting it to the rush of Ukraine conflict anymore. Now. This is despite the fact that our politicians outright said higher oil prices were a price that we needed to pay in order to defend our values and assist the Ukraine. Thinks of that nature. Nancy Pelosia, I mean, she came out right and said that. She said, let me be clear, the United States need not choose between our democratic values and our economic interests. The Administration and Congress remain laser focused on bringing down the higher energy costs for American families and our partners stemming from Putin's invasion. That was three months ago. Okay, So Pelosi acknowledges that we have high gas prices partially because of the Russian invasion, because because we might not want to accept it, it might not be pleasant, but we have to accept that Vladimir Putin he has a certain degree of leverage because he controls a certain amount of oil right in his If he presses a certain point, that will cause a pain point for the United States manifested in increased energy and oil prices. And that is what has happened. To the extent that they have been laser focused on bringing down energy cost it hasn't worked. Energy costs, gas costs continue to go up. Russia continues to sell a ton of oil and and energy to Western Europe, um. They also are able to kind of shift production around and ship demand around to China. Russia soul three times as much oil to China. Uh, so far in two thousand twenty two. Then it didn't thousand twenty one. So the idea that we were going to be able to bleed Russia dry, or that it was going to be worth that the calculus worked out for US to assist Ukraine essentially fight a proxy battle against Russia through the Ukraine. That would hurt Russia more than it hurts us. That's a point in favor, but hurting us quite a bit. Vladimir Putin has been able to utilize that as a leverage point, and we have not. The Biden administration the United States has not been able to counteract that and find a way to lower gas prices. So what's the military situation? Absolutely, it has not gone as well for Russia as a lot of people were anticipating. It was kind of embarrassing the first month or two, but they haven't given up. Right, It's like, if the idea is okay, if we arm the Ukraine, if the Ukraine can win this battle of attrition and bleed out the Russians, eventually either the economy is going to collapse, the military is gonna lose its morale, or the military is going to accept its defeat um and the Ukraine will be able to declare some sort of victory. In the United States, incidentally, from that that also does not seem to be happening. No matter how many men the Russians lose, is no matter how many uh now, matter how many you know, mishaps they have on the battlefield, they seem to be coming back. They seem to be able to throw more troops. They can keep on recruiting more troops, creating more arms and equipment, and they can keep going and it seems to be working out eventually. The Ukraine, it seems that they are wearing down the Ukrainian defense forces, which are aided by fifty four billion dollars in aid from the United States. That's fifty four billion. That's an insane amount of money. The United States has made a fifty four billion well, if you want to add oil up prices to it, fifty four billion dollars out the door, plus the increase in oil cost. That is what we are risking. What we've put at risk by not trying to aim this conflict to some sort of resolution, because we don't seem to have any interest, We don't seem to be making any efforts towards the resolution whatsoever. We're accepting. Hey, we would like to support the Ukraine. We would like ideally, you know, in a perfect world, we would be able to fight this proxy war and win it without significant cost to us. But doesn't seem to be working out. It seems that the Russians, it seem is that putin for better for worse. Once again, it's not my preference. It just seems to be reality that he has more endurance, that the Russians have more stomach for this fight than the Ukrainians in the United States do for a variety of reasons. But that seems to be the reality. And so it's a tough pill to swallow. And also, you know, particularly after things seems so promising that the Ukraine did put up such stiff military resistance that in the long run, if you stretch this timeline out long enough, things might not fall in our favor here. So rust Out in the New York Times, he wrote a piece on this, acknowledging both the good, the bad, and the ugly, said, we can't be Ukraine Hawks forever that essentially acknowledging time is on Putin's side. We don't have the stomach for this to drag on. This has to come to some sort of resolution for us, but Vladimir Putin doesn't. He doesn't. We We people were assuming that things were gonna start looking bleak for him, that the Russian people were going to turn against him, that he was going to accept that his military wasn't up to the task, that the Ruble was going to collapse. These things, unfortunately, have not happened. So doubt that gives the trajectory here. Doubt that starts off. I was not a uk Raine Hawk before the war came. I felt the United States has overextended itself with its half open door policy around NATO membership, and that Eastern Ukraine at least wasn't defensible against Russian aggression without a full scale American military commitment. Sending arms to Key have probably made sense, but as a means of eventually bogging down a Russian incursion, not stopping it outright. The war itself has defied those expectations. The Hawks were proven right about Ukraine's simple capacity to fight. They were proven right that American arms could actually help blunt of Russian invasion, not just create an insurgency behind its lines. So as he acknowledges the initial response, it defied certain expectations. It was a data point that we should get involved on the side of the Ukrainians and help them fend off the Russians, and their psychological read on Vladimir Putin has been partly vindicated as well. His choices suggest a man motivated as much by imperial restoration as by anti anti NATO defensive is um. So that's about you know it. Does Putin are his plans just for the Ukraine or does he have grander plans? And I don't think there's necessarily I think the jury is still out on that one, because you know, I think he's at least understood that, Hey, his military they might be able to salvage a win here in the Ukraine, but they're they're not up to task going and attacking other countries that get closer and closer to the NATO firewall. So is doth that goes on in the realm of practical policy. To date, I have joined the Hawks. Our military support for Ukraine has worked. We have safeguarded a sovereign nation, and we can arrival without dangerous escalation from the Russian side. Okay, fair enough, those things all seem to be true, but you drag the timeline out longer as it goes on. Yet, when I read the broader theories of Hawkish commentators, their ideas about America's strategic vision and what kind of endgame we should be seeking in the war, I still find myself baffled by their confidence and absolutism. What what's our endgame here? Where is this all going? For all their defensive successes, we have not yet established that Ukraine's military can regain significant amounts of territory in the country south and east. So listen, Yes, they were able to fend off Kiev and some of the other biggest cities, but the Russians they'll be satisfied with just carving out a little bit of territory in the south and the east. And that seems to be what they're doing. They're taking over the done Boss region. They seem to be operating, you know, they've kind recovered from some of their initial embarrassment um and mishaps, and they seem to be performing adequately at this time, and the Ukraine's only have so many resources left even with our fifty four billion dollars doubt that then goes on to some of the risks for the United States. Our plan cannot be to continue writing countless checks while tiptoeing modestly around the Ukrainians and letting them dictate the ends to which our guns and weapon rear used. The United States is an embattled global hedgemen facing threats more significant than Russia. We are also an internally divided country led by an unpopular president whose majorities may be poised for political collapse. So if Kievan Moscow are headed for a multi year or even multi decade frozen conflict, we will need to push Ukraine towards its most realistic, rather than its most ambitious, military strategy, And just as urgently, we will need to shift some of the burden for supporting Kiva from our own budget to our European allies. I don't see, and that all sounds pretty sensible to me. We can't keep on doing this forever. What happens when billion runs out? What happens if Vladimir putin? Because hey, the Russians once again for better, for worse, not how we see things. He values life less. The Russians punish him for their casualties, far less than our our citizens would punish our politicians for American casualties. They don't see things the same way that we see them. So it seems like he has more stomach for a longer fight. So the longer this goes on, the more plays to put in, the less options that gives the United States. So once again, where's the endgame? How are we finding an off ramp here? Because I mean, do we want seven dollar gas? Do we want five dollar average gas and seven dollars in the higher markets forever? Because that seems to be where it's headed. Where are we going to be able to find other oil sources? I mean, if we maintain this at the unity, if the Russia, So if this paradigm, if this Rubrics has maintained, where the Russians are able to sell to India, to China, they still have Europe by the balls and we can't really unwind ourselves from them. I mean, this is our new reality, and it's not a good one. What happens with a landslide in the other direction. In November, Joe the Biden administration isn't gonna be able to keep this up. So it's all aiming towards all an indicator that we have to start trying to find a resolution to this conflict. And it's gonna be one that's that's not perfect. I think it's gonna have to be one where Vladimir Putin gets to declare at least some partial victory and we have to start getting prepared for that one. Um And maybe, you know, maybe because it's quieted down around the Russia issue, it won't be as big of a deal. But this is still you know, this is, like I said, the biggest issue worldwide. I mean, this was on everyone's mind about three months ago. It's still going on, and no one seems to talk about it any longer. They seem to still just bitch and moan about gas prices, which is directly tied to this conflict. So as it lurks in the background, we may have forgotten about this war, but this war has not forgotten about us. So as doubt that finishes off, a good strategic theory needs to assume difficulty challenging limits. The danger now is that the practical achievements of our hawkish policy encourage the opposite kind of theorizing a U burst that squanders are still provisional success realism, folks. We've got to be realistic about foreign policy, about our capabilities, the cost and benefits of them. And that's the type of sober thinking it needs to return on this Russia situation, or else we're gonna be paying seven eight dollars for gas for the foreseeable future and we'll have more of the prevailing narrative after the break. Okay, So a friend of the program was in the news this week, Dr Peter Navarro. He was top economic advisor to the President Trump ahead of his China trade policy and actually critical to the coronavirus response and Operation Warp speed in terms of getting the vaccine up and running. And someone who I think has done great work on behalf of this country and was a good guy. Um, Peter Navarro, I haven't loved, you know, his his take and his response on the on you know, Donald Trump's claims of election fraud and January six. But listen, these are opinions. He's entitled to have his opinion. I don't find them anything that in anathema. And if there's anything I can say about Navarro is that he tries to have his opinions grounded in some sort of reality in fact, and I think he's made an attempt in that regard as well, even though I disagree with him on the election. Um. So, Peter Navarro was arrested on federal charges by the Department of Justice this week. So there's a Congressional committee looking into January six and the Capital riot, and they've subpoena in Peter Navarro, not of any specific evid is that he was a motivating factor and instigator in the Capital riot or somehow convinced Donald Trump to take his role into whatever and we'll get to that in a second. Whatever his role was in inciting that capital right, But he was a president, he's a friend of h He's essentially a friendly party to Trump, a supporter of Trump, an advisor to Trump. And it is just assumed that he has relevant communications that need to be brought in front of the Congressional committee. So he was served with a subpoena, he rejected the subpoena, he and was ruled in contempt of the committee, and he was arrested. UM And now criminal charges are being brought against him, and then you question, Okay, wait, is this legitimate? Is this typical? Is this customary? So one, I mean there's a question at two. This is not a court, This is not a judiciary, This is not a court of law. This is a congressional committee. Do they have the right to send people to jail for not uh, for not complying with subpoenas. That's something that's up for discussion. That's something that Peter Navar already had sued before he was arrested. He had sued UH to reject the subpoena. So and put that question up to the judiciary, which is supposed to under the balance of powers. Judiciary is supposed to have the right to determine the legality and the constitutionality of things such as this. But the Department of Justice decided to go ahead and arrest him um and not even you know that a lot of these types of situations, you alert the the UH, you alert the accused ahead of time, and you give them the opportunity to submit to the court. And Peter Navarro afterwards said, Listen, I live in d C. I live right near the FBI. Had you asked me to submit I would have I would have done so, but no, they went and kind of made a show of it in arresting him. And this is something I think, he's a seventy year old man. Um and locking up and locking him up in prison shackles and putting him in solitary confinement. This is what they did to this guy. And on the one hand, hey, I'm in favor of complying with subpoenas. UM Navarro is asserting executive privilege on behalf of Donald Trump, that these communications with Trump are protected because Donald Trump has executive privilege. It's pretty much, you know, unlikely anyone would challenge that. And his stance in his his position is that he has executive privilege as an extension of his communications with Trump. So he should have his day in a court of law on that. And I think it's pretty questionable why they went ahead and arrested him. Um does this happen often? Actually, Steve benn and another person, Steve Bennon wasn't even a member of Donald Trump's administration on January six, but once again, because he's supportive of Donald Trump, UM, apparently the Department of Justice thinks there's legal standing to subpoena him for the committee and arrest him and file criminal charges because he did not comply with the subpoena. This has not happened since ninety three, so it's not unprecedented, but it happens incredibly rarely, and it seems pretty partisan. That seems like a bit of utilizing the Department of Justice because the Capital riot was so you know, it was so despicable, because of the gravity of the situation, using that to kind of take it out on your political enemies. I'm not so sure this has legal standing. UM, So I don't know. I'm gonna reach out to Peter hopefully, you know, he has the funds and the capabilities to mount a legal defense. Um. He like everybody else, has the right to you know, to do process, and I hope that that is observed here and he is treated properly. Um. While I do understand, you know, I do lean in the direction of him complying with the subpoena and uh and him following that rule, even if I think this is a bit of a partisan witch hunt, So that all kind of goes back to the notion of, you know what, to what extent was Donald Trump responsible for the Capital riot because while I don't think that he directly insided it, you know, he he kind of stirred up that crowd. The crowd was there because of him. He used irresponsible language and kind of I don't think he wanted to see happen. I don't think in any way deliberately intended for there to be a riot, but he kind of played with fire and he got burnt. And I can't really feel bad. I don't really have any sympathy for Donald Trump in that regard. He's spoken acted very recklessly, but there's always the question of those are those who speak recklessly in a direction responsible for crazy people who follow them and taking crazy actions, Because that's kind of what happened with the Capitol, right. So this one actually happened on Wednesday. Someone tried to plan on assassinating a Supreme Court justice and taking quite a few steps towards it. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. So man Nicholas John Roski twenty six, a man from California, So he was upset about the shooting in Yuval Day, Texas and impending decisions on abortion guns and traveled to Justice Kavanaugh's home with any variety with an arsenal of weaponry with the intent to assassinate him. So let's check this one out. Uh Roski was charged with attempted murder after to U S Deputy Marshall saw him step out of a taxi cab in front of the Justice's house. Um, there was security in front of Kavanaugh's house. You want to know why. There's been a bunch of threats and a bunch of protests since the abortion ruling. The preliminary ruling on abortion was leaked a couple of months back, So there seems to be some consequences to violating the personal space of a Supreme Court justice because of the constitutional decisions that you don't like. You don't like how the Court is ruling on abortion, so you get to go and threaten and intimidate and put invade the person and family space of a Supreme Court justice. Now there seems to be security in front of the Justice's house in order to ward off, you know, and he attempts from crazies like that. But there seems to be people stepping beyond the bounds of what is reasonable in in kind of attacking and intimidating Supreme Court justices and other political actors, and that seems to can we connect that behavior to the outright crazies who then go with an arsenal seems that this guy had a tactical chest rig, a tactical knife, a pistol, two magazines, ammunition, pepper spray, zip ties, a hammer, a screwdriver, a nail punch, a crowbar. It goes on and on. So um there seems and it's kind of odd that Brett Kavanaugh was chosen out of all the conservative justices. We remember the ship show around Brett kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination where you know, there was an accusation from his childhood when he was something like fifteen at a high school party about his behavior. That a lot of doubt was cast on these accusations. But even if you know something that may, even if true, maybe maybe would have disqualified a person from the Supreme Court, but didn't seem to kind of warrant the many death threats, the dressed, the harassment of his family that he was put through in response to those accusations. So it seems like you can kind of draw a bit of a direct line from all the attacks, all the smears against Brett Kavanaugh and the fact that someone showed up on his doorstep today with the intent to kill him in a bunch of weapons to do so and was only stopped by the security. Was that was there? Right? So, there's kind of a moral and philosophical question of when you smear an attack and demonize people, when you speak in a point direction, a certain manner about people or about situations, and then the craziest amongst us then act upon that in a way that can be harmful in a violent in a violent manner, you know who has responsibility for the reckless to for the reckless discussion? Right? Do the the UH to the liberal interest groups that posted Justice Kavanaugh's home address on the internet recently? Do they bear any responsibility for what transpired? Day? Um? Does Donald Trump bear? To what extent does he bear responsibility for January six? This is a question that unfortunately we have to struggle with because it keeps on happening. This is the type of thing that didn't used to happen very often, but now in such a polarized in such a heated environment, we have to continually look to blame and figure out and point the finger at who's speaking, who is harassing somebody? Who's harassing a public figure or demonizing a public figure and speaking in about them in a way that makes them look like a true and utter threat to society. Than crazy people act on that type of insinuation and take it too far, and things get out of hand and chaotic and violent. Right this Unford, This is an unfortunate characteristic and feature of modern American life. So thankfully Nicholas John Roski was stopped before he was able to visit any violence upon Brett Kavanaugh and or his family. But is an odd This seems to be a pretty big event. This is a Supreme Court justice. Someone tried to assassinate a Supreme Court justice and it got so far as to getting to their person about a block away from their personal residence, and I don't know it, asked literally, anyone find me on social media and message me. Had you heard about this incident before you listen to it on this podcast? Am I the first person to inform you that this thing happened? Because the news doesn't seem to really be covering it. So Nate Silver one of the few thoughtful and professional mainstream journalists left. He even acknowledged, like, why is nobody covering the story. I mean he mentioned that, you know, he doesn't agree with blaming those who those uh who leaked his address, Kavanaugh's address, or leaked the abortion decision for this act of this crazy person. But yeah, he said, yeah, it's sort of crazy that it's not being treated as a bigger story. There's often more bias in which stories are deemed to be saying it than how they're written about. So I mean, Nate Silver is willing to acknowledge it, Like, wait a second, this seems to be a pretty newsworthy event. Think about if a Donald Trump supporter wearing a Maga hat had been caught outside the home of Justice Soda Mayor of Contention Kntaji Jackson Brown or one of the liberal justices, And if a Donald Trump supporter had been caught with a plan and weapons to assassinate them, if that would be a big story. Would that make the cover of the news Pretty sure, everyone would be screaming bloody murder about it. There's an odd hypocrisy in this, And once again, I love I am would really do have the objective to try to call balls and strikes and be neutral here. But if you're a neutral observer of this as Nate Silver is attempting to be here and I think succeeding. Do you realize that this is completely asymmetrical, that this is completely imbalanced. It's not doing anyone at a service that we've kind of demonized, and that essentially any no note, anything bad that happens to conservative public figures or politicians or Supreme Court justices is deemed, you know, not to be such a big deal. Right, whether it's Peter Navarro being someone abused by the legal system in the Department of Justice, or Brett Kavanaugh having someone come into his house with a freaking arsenal looking to assassinate him and maybe his family. So more bad omens, more bad ju ju in American society. How are we going to turn it around? I'm not necessarily sure. As you come to this podcast every week, I try to work through these issues and see, all right, how how can we fix us? How can we write the ship, take down the temperature a little bit. I don't know anyone who's got any thoughts, Please submit them, send them to me on social media. UM would love to hear from all of you. This has been the prevailing narrative. Everybody, have a great week. I am at Bolinsky once again. You can listen and subscribe to The Prevailing Narrative on the I Heart Radio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you're listening right now. Make sure to follow me on my socials at Matt Bolinsky m A T T B I L I N s k Y. The Prevailing Narrative is a Cavalry Audio production and association with I Heart Radio produced by Brandon Morgan, Executive produced by Dana Burnetti and Kegan Rosenberger for Calvary Audio. I'm at Bolinsky