The Ricochet Podcast - Justice Served

Episode Date: August 2, 2019

It’s summer and when people go on vacation, we like to mix things up a bit, with James off this week, we called on our friend and fellow podcaster John Yoo to sit in. That was a fortuitous choice as our guest is Mollie Hemingway, former Ricochet editor, Fox News contributor, and co-author the the best selling book Justice on Trial: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court. Source

Blood clots can happen to anyone, at any age. Be particularly vigilant if you are going into hospital, have active cancer or undergoing cancer treatment, are pregnant or just had a baby, are in a leg cast or had a lower limb injury, are taking the combined oral contraceptive pill or oral HRT. Ask your doctor for a blood clot risk assessment. Visit thrombosis.ie.

I would rather be governed by the first 2,000 people in the Boston telephone directory than by the 2,000 people on the faculty of Harvard University. As government expands, liberty contracts. It's funny, sometimes American journalists talk about how bad a country is because people are lining up for food. That's a good thing. First of all, I think he missed his time.

Please clap. It's the Ricochet Podcast, number 458. Our guests today are Molly Hemingway and sitting in for James Lilacs, who's off this week is John Yu. So we got you. We got Molly. We got Peter. We got Rob. Let's go. Hello. Welcome to the Rich Day podcast number 458. What you have missed is about 15 minutes of sorting out the audio quality, audio connections, which even at podcast number 458 we still don't quite have down i am rob long thank you for joining us along with me as always is peter robinson in palo alto peter how are you well aside from incompetent i'm fine 458 and i still couldn't

figure out the right place to plug in the headset. Right. Yeah. Yeah, that was. I know. I know. I know. You're being human. I know. We'll see whether the Blue Yeti decides to work in at the end of the show. A few of the choice epithets while I was trying to figure it out. No epithets at all. I roll with the things. Speaking of rolling with it, James Lilacs is off this week, but sitting in for him is John Yu, our old friend John Yu, the visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution, professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley, Bolt, and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. And as you know, from 2001 to 2003, he served as deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel, the OLC of recent thing in the Justice Department under President George W. Bush. He's also the co-host of the wildly popular Law Talk with Epstein and you, which you can listen to right here on Ricochet.

John was just – John, welcome. Thank you. I'm so jazzed up to play Lilacs. I've got my yellow tank top muscle shirt on and my bike shorts i i'm so psyched to be here and i know you're guys trying to make me feel welcome with peter robinson's rendition of richard epstein trying to use a laptop computer and a microphone so just like home on the law talk podcast attempting to master late 20th century technology um yeah so basically, as we were saying earlier, when we sent you the rundown, you said, this is very incredibly detailed,

considering the rundown for Law Talk is just Richard Epstein talks, John Yoo attempts to interrupt. It's a little bit more worked out. And you should put in parentheses unsuccessfully well i think that was that was that was implied um but speaking of talking and interrupting and being unsuccessful we had two debates democratic uh uh democratic candidates running for the democratic nomination uh in 2020 two debates two nights both interminable, I found, incredibly long and vaguely otherworldly. Peter, what did you think?

Did you think the same thing about both of them? Did you make a distinction between part one and part two? I made a political, as shows, they were both just bizarre to me, surreal. I just couldn't see a single grown-up on the stage. There's old grandpa Joe Biden who just sort of could hardly – I felt for Joe Biden because I felt that it seemed as surreal to him as it seemed to me. As a political matter, I drew a distinction between one and two. Joe Biden has this. I just don't see. The Democratic Party is not as far to the left as anybody up there. It's not as far to the left as Joe Biden even thinks he has to position himself. But Joe Biden feels like an old-fashioned

centrist. And that's really where most of the party is, I guess. Everybody else except Joe Biden feels like an old-fashioned centrist, and that's really where most of the party is, I guess. Everybody else except Joe Biden is trying to demonstrate how far to the left he can be to distinguish himself from Joe. It's all just hopeless. Okay, so that's the political thing. Number one, in the second debate, there's the man who's going to win the nomination. I think Joe Biden doesn't deserve it particularly. Low-energy Joe, he's a little too old, but he's going to win the nomination. I think Joe Biden doesn't deserve it particularly. Low energy Joe. He's a little too old, but he's going to win it.

But the bizarre – I mean, no, it's Jay Inslee. I'm quoting Jay Inslee. The people on this stage, I'm quoting him, are the last best hope of humanity on earth. Is he kidding? Marianne Williamson talked about about i agree about her but a dark psychic force of collectivist collectivized hatred i don't even know what they were talking about it was mad uh john you knew what they were talking about when they said dark psychic forest didn't you dark psychic course of collectivized anger isn't that just like walking on a college campus anywhere these days?

Stanford, Berkeley. I mean, I know exactly what she was talking about. I was like, and we should do what we do on campuses. Bring out the petting llamas. Bring out the petting dogs and the super glue and the Play-Doh for exam stress time. She'd be a great dean of students. That's absolutely, absolutely correct. So here's what I thought.

I found it very strange from both sides. I try to watch these things, no matter what party it is, and try to figure out who's being successful with their audience. I think the challenge to thread the needle is how do you go far left enough? And this is classic political science. How do you go far left enough to win the nomination? You don't go so far away off that you can't go back to the middle. The thing that's killing all of these candidates is they're signing on to things like the Green New Deal, which would destroy the economy, Medicare for All, and preventing people

having private health insurance, a socialized economy. I think they are, and let's not even start talking about what they're saying about the police and law enforcement, which is just incredible, basically calling most policemen in the country racists. This is, they are, I mean, they are killing themselves. Yeah. Okay. So, however, the premise of your analysis is that the, which is actually the premise of my analysis, but people disagree with us.

And the premise is that the Democratic electorate, that is to say the primary electorate, and even though it's the most, in both parties, it's the most extreme, it's the more conservative you are, the more likely you are to vote in a Republican primary election, the more liberal you are, the more likely you are to vote in a Democratic election. Even at that, you and I both believe that there's a kind of common sense centrist ballast, even to the Democratic primary electorate. And you know what? Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg, if I'm pronouncing his name correctly, I still don't think I have it down right.

Am I back? But they all disagree with that premise. They think we're just wrong. Well, first of all, they're not. They're also ignoring the Electoral College. So they have this idea that you win the election. Even they could win the general election by ignoring the middle and just turning out the base. That's great. That just means there's going to be more people in California, Illinois, and New York who are just

going to pad the big margins they're going to get. But they need to win the middle states, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. So I was giving a hard time to one of my friends in the Trump White House the other day about their trade policies. And he said, you know, John, there's three factors that are going to explain our trade policies. In fact, everything we do. And I was like, well, what is it? I promise I won't tell anyone. And he says, yeah, right. And he says, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Right, right, right. Well, I'm back Pennsylvania. Right, right, right. Well, I'm back now. Sorry I dropped out. I just wanted to add one thing, which is that the needle that the Democrat nominee has to thread is, one, you have to take either a bunch of positions that America hates, like free health care and education to illegals.

And, in fact, the elimination of the idea of any kind of illegal immigration and being decriminalized and and the elimination of private health insurance or you take you you don't take those positions in which case you've taken a position the majority of democratic primary voters despise so you really are in a tough spot. What I found so bizarre about the two debates really was just the total absence – and I agree with Eric Holder here. Eric Holder tweeted, to my fellow Democrats, be wary of attacking the Obama record. Build on it. Expand it.

But there's little to be gained for you or the party by attacking a very successful and still popular Democratic president. He's absolutely right. You always agree with Eric Holder, though. I do. You're a patsy. You've been giving to his presidential campaign this whole time. I was hoping he was going to put you in prison, John.

He's absolutely right. It was so strange. You had to really twist your head and bend it around. They have disappeared obama into the memory hole they really don't want to talk about it i don't think it's because they're embarrassed by it but because they need to create this disaster scenario the way they talked about health care and health care in america it's as if obama never existed but obamacare didn't exist i felt like we were back in 1992 or something. It's crazy.

And then the second thing they did, the very – I mean the other sort of strange thing that Elizabeth Warren did at the end of the first debate is talk about nuclear weapons. I mean I thought I was back in college. It was 1986 again. And it just seems so old and retro and tired. Is that what you and Brett Kavanaugh were calling your drinks, the nuclear bomb? I don't know. We'll come to Brett Kavanaugh. So Rob and John, Rob is the TV professional here.

But as you know, Roger Ailes used to say, you can tell whether anybody's any good on television if you turn off the sound. Just watch the body language, the gestures, who's interested, who's visually interesting, who conveys energy, who conveys a certain gravitas. So abstracted from all the crazy things that these people said, my impression, just as a question of who has presence, is that Mayor Pete is very overestimatedimated he just struck me as another young person up there on the stage and elizabeth warren may be underestimated she seems pretty i don't know i don't this is this is subjective it's difficult to describe she has a real presence she there were moments when she was dominating though she was the dominant figure on the entire stage even when the camera was just getting reaction shots from her she was the most interesting energetic figure i felt what about you i i wasn't going john well i thought this isn't

i think that's partially the luck of the draw i mean elizabeth warren was kind of she was like stuck between like a nursery school and a retirement home. She's got like these geriatrics on one side of her and these kids who look like they're 30, if not 25-year-olds on the other. She looks like the only responsible adult in that first debate. I mean it was – she was one by default where all the big, high-powered people are in the second debate. Maybe. I actually felt – I agree with you about Mayor Pete. If you turn the sound down, who's winning, it's hard to know. Maybe I just like Delaney because he's the most conservative on the dais, so I like him. I think that Elizabeth Warren's strategy is to run as everything – Hillary Clinton without the Hillary Clinton.

And it's not stupid, necessarily. Hillary Clinton got a whole lot of votes. But I don't think that's a very catchy phrase. But I realized 10 seconds, 10 seconds after you said it, that I don't have no idea what it means. Look, Hillary Clinton without the Hillary running is an extremely liberal, very progressive first woman, first woman, first woman running. First woman nominee. And she's running on essentially that platform. A little bit to the left, but essentially that. And essentially angry.

And what she hopes is that people, everything that people, a whole lot of people voted for Hillary Clinton who don't like Hillary Clinton. And then a whole lot of people don't like Hillary Clinton, so didn't vote for her. And what she's hoping is that she gets all those people minus any of the Hillary Clinton baggage. It's not a winning platform there. You're basically saying she's saying, I'm more competent than Hillary. Hillary's campaign was, I'm more competent than the last guy. Yeah, that's kind of – It's a boom arm from hell. It's not – yeah, right. But it's not a totally bad – I mean – Hillary Clinton got 70 million votes. from hell it's not yeah right but it's not a totally bad i mean that we all hillary clinton

got 70 million votes a whole lot of votes so there is some some something wrong with the personality fit with hillary clinton and that um and that and the electorate that i think elizabeth warren is just trying to replay uh and i personally think it's dumb but you know listen look i could be blind to it speaking of blinds ladies and gentlemen that's that was awesome for many of us your blinds or whatever you have in your windows is an afterthought but with brand new made to order custom window coverings from blinds.com you can really transform the look and feel of your entire home when they're right everything in your house looks better and when they're wrong everything in your house looks better. And when they're wrong, everything in your house looks cheap. If you need new blinds, there's only one place you would go. Blinds.com.

Why 15 million windows covered and over 30,000 five-star customer reviews. Blinds.com is America's number one online retailer for affordable quality custom window coverings. Whether you're looking for energy efficiency, you just moved, or you want to refresh the look of your home, Blinds.com makes the whole experience so fast and easy. Blinds.com makes the whole experience fast and easy. Plus, every order gets free samples, free shipping, and a free online design consultation. Just send them pictures of your house, and they send back custom recommendations from a professional for what will work with your color scheme, furniture, specific rooms. They even send you free samples to make sure everything looks as good in person as it does online,

and every order gets free shipping, and this is the best part. If you accidentally mismeasure or pick the wrong color, if you make a mistake, say, which, Peter, are you listening? If you make a mistake, Blinds.com will remake your blinds for free, even if you make that mistake, Peter. I call this the Peter Robinson feature of Blinds.com will remake your blinds for free, even if you make that mistake, Peter. I call this the Peter Robinson feature of Blinds.com. They've really made it easy. There's no excuse to leave up those mangled blinds. And for a limited time, our listeners get $20 off at Blinds.com when you use promo code Ricochet.

That's Blinds.com. Promo code Ricochet for $20 off. Faux wood blinds, cellular shades, roller shades, and more. Blinds.com. That's Blinds, B-L-I-N-D-S dot com. Promo code Ricochet. Some rules and restrictions apply. Check it out. And our thanks to Blinds.com for sponsoring the Ricochet podcast.

I am staring at a window right now and thinking, hmm, I gotta do something. So, there you go. We are joined right now by Ricochet's own Molly Hemingway. Those of you who are members of Ricochet and if you're a member, you should join to Ricochet dot com slash join. Remember that she was an editor at Ricochet and a community kind of leader here. And now she's the senior editor at The Federalist and a senior journalism fellow at Hillsdale, as well as a Fox News contributor.

She is on Twitter. Other mainstream media journalists cower in her presence. She is, in fact, a very, very dangerous troublemaker. She has a new book out, Justice on Trial, the Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court. Literally, no one has read it and no one has bought it and no one's talking about it, according to all of the bestseller lists. Molly, tell me about the book. First of all, welcome. Tell me about the book and tell me where you are on the bestseller list.

Well, it is great to be here. And the New York Times and the Washington Post have put us on their bestseller list. Oh, that's only mentioned the only mention that we have in those publications, despite the fact that justice on trial is based on the interviews of more than 100 key figures in the topices, dozens of senators, everybody who was involved with the process in confirming. Molly, Peter here. Sitting justices went on the record with you to talk about the Kavanaugh hearings? So we interviewed, like I said, more than 100 people. And actually, most of the people were extremely open with us about everything. And most of it was on background. So we verified every story with multiple sources, and we would speak to multiple participants in a conversation. But it is told just more as the

definitive account rather than, you know, we don't out which justices said what. So Molly is the Woodward and Bernstein of the left. Oh, well, it all comes to the left. Yeah, right. For the left. Like that. For the right of the right. Sorry. So.

OK, so, Molly, I mean, it is now I mean, we're now at the beginning of August. So this book was reported and researched. It's still fresh. I mean, the wounds are still fresh. What is your what is the what is the I'm trying not to answer my own question. What is the what was your biggest what do you put it this way? What do you think the left wing media would be upset the most by the facts in your book? What are the facts that you think they really, really wish you hadn't printed? Well, you know, it's interesting because one

of the things that we get into was something that many people on the left were actually quite open about, but I don't think people were paying enough attention to, which was the coordination of the effort to keep Kavanaugh from being seated on the Supreme Court and how there were all these links between different groups and how they paid protesters to come out and how the attorneys that were working with the clients that made all these allegations against Kavanaugh were all kind of connected. But they actually were pretty open about it. So I would say the fact that we talked with so many people who knew Christine Blasey Ford, who have known her for a long time, and what they said about whether they believed her or not, and sort of the picture that they painted of her, would possibly be upsetting. Just because they worked so hard to kind of tell a very particular story about her that was not actually true. But it seems like there was a giant nuclear exchange in last autumn, and then the minute

he was sworn in, he's on the court, the swarm wants to move on to something else. Is that a fair... I think it's... Oh, yeah. It's such an indictment, too, of the people who were making these allegations or who were spreading them. If it were bad that someone who was this monster that they were portraying him as was even being considered for the Supreme Court, how much worse would it be if he's actually sitting on the Supreme Court?

And yet the moment the confirmation is done, it's just the story just disappeared like it was like it had never happened. And even I would say this very curious to me that this story that was so important last year, we have all this fresh new reporting on it, you know, highly sourced at the highest levels. And the media aren't interested in it when they were willing to run with any story, no matter how specious about, you know, a joke made in Brett Kavanaugh's yearbook. Like there was a very low standard for interest last fall. But now it's just apparently the story isn't important. Molly says, John, you here. I think in your book, you conclude that the accuser, Dr. Ford, I don't know your view on whether she even has a real doctorate, but Dr. Ford, she was lying. How do you know that she was lying? What did you add that didn't get out there

in the public record at the time of the hearings that undermined her credibility? So my co-author, Kerry Severino, and I are actually very careful to just say what can be established, and we do not speculate about her or what was going on there. So for us, the important standard is when you make an allegation, there should be evidence in support of that allegation. And we already all know that there was never any evidence provided in support of the allegation. Then the witnesses that were supposedly at the event said that they didn't remember anything of the sort, including lifelong friend Leland Kaiser, who grew up with Christine Blasey Ford, who's remained friends with her over many decades. And what I would say is we just kind of carry further with things.

We do have new reporting about Leland Kaiser that she it wasn't just that she didn't remember, but that she really worked in question, she lost confidence in her friend's story that she was pressured by mutual acquaintances of the two to change her story, that she reported that to the FBI. And that that report to the FBI was actually very that made a lot of senators who were already inclined to vote for Kavanaugh, much more confident in his version of events. So there were things that, you know, we just kind of go through everything and establish more about, you know, her claims and how they differed from... Also, was there anything on, anything that you found that's new on Kavanaugh's side to make us or make the readers understand or think that he was actually more likely telling the truth. You know, I'm just trying to get it. What do we know more about the he said, she said sort of competing against? Molly, Peter here, John, you is a little ticked off that you didn't interview him because he knew Brett Kavanaugh so well at Yale Law School. Actually, I think it's Rob who's the one who's in that room.

Wait a minute. Wait a minute. John, you went to law school. I wasn't aware that, John, you went to law school. I went to Yale Law School. Well, the only thing about the law there is the title of the thing. It's the original law at Yale Law School. Let's let Malay answer the question.

I don't disclose who we spoke with, but I'm not sure if I would agree with that characterization that John was not someone who has spoken already about his relationship. In fact, I remember – I think it was in an interview I saw with you, Peter, where he was talking about replacing him in his apartment after he left at the law school. Yes. I looked in the cupboards there was nothing there they were bare right well and that's i would say we in both cases in the case of christine blasey ford and brett kavanaugh people gave really nuanced depictions of both like her friends said no they didn't believe her but they really liked her and they found her to be a

nice person they weren't quite sure what was going on liked her and they found her to be a nice person. They weren't quite sure what was going on with Brett Kavanaugh. Definitely did like to drink on weekends. But we interviewed several of his ex-girlfriends. They spoke glowingly of him, which is not something you always get when women are talking about their ex-boyfriends. Except Rob. Peter, that's not true. So, Molly, I'm jumping around here. And so feel free, Peter, to sort of back me up here or to back up.

But so the book came out. It was a huge it was a huge success, but it was also a huge success before it was appeared on any list. Why do you do you think that the liberal media decided, you know what, we're just going to ignore it. It doesn't matter. It's not consequential. Or do they, or are they afraid of it or both? I actually think that they might've not realized that it was such a well-sourced,

deeply reported book. A lot of books that come out these days are just people kind of opining on what they think about something. And in the case of Carrie and my book, we really worked hard to interview so many people across the spectrum. And it's not just about what happened last year. It's about putting it in context of Supreme Court history. It's a very serious book, even though it's a very readable book, I think. I don't think they realized it was going to be that way. So I think they just thought, oh, just like all other conservative books or books from conservative authors, we can dismiss it. And then by the time they realized it was a real book with real news that was being broken. I mean, we break news about

how Justice Kennedy retired from the Supreme Court that hadn't been previously reported, you know, things that aren't even ideological in any way. I think that they just had to stick to it. But I do, I anticipated they would ignore it. I am shocked that they're able to ignore it this many weeks out with it being such a bestseller and with it having so much news. It is really also, they just don't want to deal with the fact that we do kind of report about how there was some major media malpractice, like hiding information. And we have the receipts. We show how they sat on stories or wrote up things that were inaccurate. And I don't think they want to deal with being held accountable. Molly, Peter here. During the hearings, I'm just going to give you a quick summary of my reaction and then ask about your

reaction as you researched and wrote the book. My reaction twofold. One, every single Democrat knew before that hearing was over that they were engaged in a totally groundless smear. And they presented it as if they were arguing in good faith, which is to say that they were lying to the American people. Every single Democrat on that committee. Second, they inverted one of the most hallowed principles of jurisprudence, the presumption of innocence. And every single Democrat on that committee is a lawyer and knew better. I was really shocked and angry, spitting angry while I was watching those hearings. Okay, it's months afterwards. You researched the book.

You wrote the book. How did your own reaction change as you wrote the book? Were there moments where you said, oh, I sort of see what Cory Booker was getting at? Were there any nuances you discovered in any information you discovered that would have? Well, let's just put it this way, that would have said my own reaction watching the hearings in real time was mistaken or unsympathetic. They really had a little point here and a little point there. Is that the kind of development of when you were writing and researching the book? I would only say that the one person who I

had more sympathy for, who was a Democratic senator, was Dianne Feinstein. The rest, the more we researched, the more we found out about some of what was going on, they just came off worse. In the case of Dianne Feinstein, she seemed the central figure in this whole plot. She had the letter. She makes sure the letter gets out. She arranges an attorney rather than putting the letter, making the allegation through the established confidential process the Senate has in place just for moments like this. And so I thought she was very, you know, very bad. The more that we researched and we spoke with so many senators, we learned that many of the Republican senators felt that it was her staff who were deceiving her, that they had gone behind her back. She is older, and they thought that as the day progressed, there's more opportunities to exploit that situation. And they were very upset with her staff, but they still didn't feel that she herself had been responsible for, I mean, except insofar as it's her staff. They didn't feel that she personally had behaved horribly. The one piece of exculpatory evidence you see, I didn't go to Yale Law School, but I can toss a few terms around myself.

The one exculpatory argument you came up with was that Dianne Feinstein is too old to be in charge of her staff, so we shouldn't hold it against her. Roughly. Yes. Okay. Nice. We're calling that the Mueller defense now. John's got a couple of questions to sort of close on, I think. Before we go, before I leave it over to John, what else would you like to know?

What are the one or two things that we don't know that no one could tell you that are still kind of missing pieces? Okay, so we had such amazing access to all the key figures out in the future from reporters who were part of the anti-Kavanaugh effort, people at The Washington Post, people at The New York Times. I imagine that they I have reason to believe that they're working more closely with Christine Blasey Ford than we were able to. And that we'll get more information about I'm just kind of curious to see who which figures they viewed as important and i'm just um anticipating that that we'll get more information about the effort to keep him from getting confirmed and i and so i i look forward to that and um in part so i can keep reporting on this do we know who the beach friends were yeah we do. Remember that? Beach Friends? What is that code word for?

Beach Friends. She said, you're sitting in Rehoboth or Bethany Beach and she was talking about, and I guess Kavanaugh had just announced that he was the nominee and she was talking to her friends about it and trying to figure out what to do. And someone said, who are the friends? And she said, you know, just Beach Friends, which means to me felt like she was sitting

in a room filled with Democratic Party operatives. But I like that was just another code for orgy or something. I wouldn't say Democratic Party operatives. I would say there definitely was, you know, maybe a shared anti-Trump nature of the people that she was friends with. For instance, Monica McClain, who I actually think has Republican ties, but of the anti-Trump nature of the people that she was friends with. For instance, Monica McLean, who I actually think has Republican ties, but of the anti-Trump nature variety, who was a former FBI agent. This, of course, comes up because she was alleged to have helped Monica pass a polygraph before she entered the FBI, something that Christine Blasey Ford denied,

but that an ex-boyfriend of Blasey Ford said he witnessed. So there are all sorts of interesting things there. But of course, nobody really felt like exploring this. Nobody looked at who was behind Christine Blasey Ford for her hearing, whereas anybody who was a friend who showed up for Brett Kavanaugh's got in trouble for showing up to support their friend. So yeah, we get into some of who those friends are in the book. I have just a personal point. Someone who clerked for Clarence Thomas, this all happened with Thomas too, and eventually there was an investigation done by the Senate, and he did catch some of the people who did all the leaking and did sort of get behind the scenes of who manipulated who to conjure up the

Nita Hill testimony. Hopefully that will happen at some point. But let me just close out, Molly, with this last question. And I think this comes because me and Peter are sitting at Stanford and Berkeley and we're just surrounded by the conspiracy theories of the left. So suppose their worst of all scenarios comes true. Donald Trump gets reelected, and then Ruth Bader Ginsburg vacates the office, willingly or unwillingly. But she dies in office or she resigns, and the sixth seat for a conservative majority comes open. Do you think that the left is going to do the same that they did to Kavanaugh, but worse? What else would they do? What's left for them to do? Or would they say, look, it didn't work on Kavanaugh. They're going to get the Ginsburg seat now. Let's try to restore some kind of

civility to the process because someday we'll be in charge and we'll get to appoint Supreme Court nominees again. Right. One of the reasons why we wrote the book was looking at the history of how confirmation battles get contested and how they get so rough. What we show is that when a nominee would substantially alter the composition of the court, that's when the left gets upset. People said, well, Brett Kavanaugh must have been a serial gang rapist because they didn't come out with these allegations against Neil Gorsuch. And if they were just doing this to thwart any nominee, then they would have done it for Gorsuch. Well, there were a lot of dirty tricks played against Gorsuch, but he was replacing Scalia, whereas Kavanaugh was replacing someone that the left viewed as their most sympathetic conservative justice, a swing vote. So if they can get this upset for a swing vote, I can't imagine how

apocalyptic it will be should a Trump nominee replace one of the liberal bloc justices. But history shows us it has happened before. It happened when Rehnquist was elevated, when Bork was scuttled, the Thomas hearings, which have so many parallels that we get into, it happened with Kavanaugh. And it will, of course, happen again. That's why people do need to be held accountable for making false allegations or for violating Senate processes. But people need to know their history so that they are prepared that when or if or when a Trump appointee fills a liberal block seat, that they are prepared for how bad it can be. And what should conservatives do next time that they didn't do for Kavanaugh to try to make sure this doesn't happen again for this next, say, sixth seat? I actually think that this was a pretty good, successful story.

It was people who – enough people were wise to the moment that the allegation was made to be suspicious of it because they had lived through the thomas hearings or because they just knew that this was something to be expected the trump white house for whatever else you want to say about it they came ready when they when the allegation hit they didn't know what it was going to be but they assumed there would be some last minute dirty trick they they vetted people for the ability to withstand this type of pressure campaign so um just being – You might say this particular candidate, president of the White House, they had a certain facility and experience responding to allegations of –

To negative smears. Molly, I know Peter wants to get in, but before he does, let me ask you this question about the White House, your sense of what was going on in the White House at the time. Did anybody – you said they were prepared, but was there anybody at the White House, your sense of what was going on in the White House at the time, did anybody – you said they were prepared. But was there anybody at the White House who at some point voiced what would have been the obvious political weasel-worded weasel choice, which is, hey, love you, Brett. You're terrific, but you're just too expensive. Was there anybody there arguing that point? His core team that was putting him through, you know, the White House counsel's office, Don McGahn and everybody, they were absolute stalwarts through the whole thing.

And as was noted, this might be the one president in history who was well suited to take on this kind of allegation. There were certainly people on the periphery. They kept a pretty tight team actually ushering the nomination through. The people on the periphery absolutely were probably wavering. And it was previously reported that Ivanka was trying to get her father to, you know, fish and cut bait. But the White House was not their concern. They were definitely concerned about senators who showed just a lack of ability to withstand the pressure. And it wasn't just Jeff Flake. We tell the story of another Republican senator on the Senate Judiciary Committee who goes to Susan Collins in the middle of that reopened hearing day after Blasey Ford testifies and says, how about you and I go to the White House and get them to pull this nomination?

And she says, I would never do that without listening to Brett Kavanaugh. So she was very good at understanding due process, but other people weren't necessarily. Molly, here's my last question. I'm going to ask you to do me a favor, but it's very important. Actually, you'd be doing the country itself a service. During the campaign, our own John Yoo. I knew it was going to be about. Was very, very, he was almost, he said he put at least a toe or two into the never Trump camp. And in particular, john, you constitutional scholar, or so some say, said that the argument that Donald Trump had to be elected because he would appoint good Supreme Court justices.

It didn't really matter by comparison with everything else that might happen in the country. Like nuclear war. John Yoo. Ah, please, nuclear war. Schmuck, you'll forget it. John Yoo, of all people, took on this. He was one of the ones who made Butt Gorsuch into a sneer. Now we have, but Gorsuch and, but Kavanaugh, Molly tell John why he's so profound was and remains to the extent that he

still harbors these thoughts profoundly mistaken. Tell him why the court matters. I don't think that's a question council. I, I am surrounded by never Trumpers and I was never one myself, but I was, of course, I was. Yeah. And I was I was concerned that he would not be that Donald Trump would not be conservative. But I actually got to tell the president this story when we interviewed him, that the that my vote for him came because of my co-author, Carrie Severino. In anguish, I come to her, oh, what should we do? This is such a horrible situation. And she just looked at me like I was a complete idiot. She was like, you vote for Trump. I mean, like, this is not a difficult thing. There are so many important positions that will be filled. You know that Hillary Clinton will be bad. You have no confidence

in Trump, but at least there's a chance. And I think it isn't just these Supreme Court positions, but all of the lower federal courts positions. And also this idea, I just want to make a point here, not only no nuclear war, but less involvement in foreign conflict than we have. Can I close it out with this story? She's on a roll. No, no, but this is this. This actually takes up Molly's point. The point is, Molly was Trump before Trump, because I teach this class at Claremont, and Molly's was one of the students.

I run a war game. And so I said, oh, for fun, I'm going to make Molly Hemingway the president. And so it was some made-up scenario about, I think, the Russians invading Ukraine. And Molly's first move is, withdraw all American troops from around the world back to the United States. Mark Hemingway, her husband, and noted Weekly Standard author, is pleading with her. No, you can't withdraw all the troops

from around the world back to Fortress America. This is several years before Trump appears. Molly's like, no, we're not wasting another American life for those damn Europeans. Damn if you didn't predict it. Molly was like... And students paid for this? This is a paid class that students paid for? They had student loan subsidies? Well, I guess I'm starting to see

the bigger picture of the problems we face as a nation. The book is called Justice on Trial, the Kavanaugh Confirmation, and the Future of the Supreme Court. The author, co-author is Molly, our own Molly Hemingway.

The book is a huge success, which is great. Because it is seriously reported. It is a reported piece of work. And I, we urge you all to go out and buy it and know that buying it not only helps Molly and helps the larger cause of the truth, but it also sticks a thumb in the eye of the media establishment,

which is that fair to say, Molly? Absolutely. Okay. Thanks for joining us. Talk to you soon. Thanks. Take care. Thanks, joining us. Talk to you soon. Thanks. Take care.

Thanks, Molly. Say hi to Mark. So before we – I want to talk – there's a little – several issues I want to bring up we need to talk about, like John Ratcliffe is now – has been withdrawn as a nominee. But before we do, we need to talk about going to bed. So let me give you the three – We were just talking about Kavanaugh. Yeah. Well, slightly different.

Let me give you the three most important words for getting a good night's sleep, comfortable, comfortable, and comfortable. If you want the best sleep of your life, you need to be comfortable, obviously. That's what all the sleeping pills are trying to do for you, but you don't need those. You just need ball and branch sheets. What makes ball and branch sheets unique is each sheet is crafted with 100% organic cotton. That means Ball & Branch sheets not only feel incredible, but also look amazing. And since Ball & Branch sells exclusively online, you don't pay expensive retail markups. That's half the price for twice the quality. And you will love these sheets. Try

them for 30 nights and see for yourself. If you're not impressed, return them for a full refund. Ball & Branch has thousands of five-star reviews. The New York Times, Forbes, the Wall Street Journal rave about them, and even three U.S. presidents have Ball & Branch sheets. I have them. I love them. I've had them for a few years. They get better and softer with washing and with use.

They are so great that even the little bag they come in, I use to take my shirts to the dry cleaner. That's how – I mean even the little bag. It's just one of those things. So go to ballandbranch.com today and you get $50 off your first set of sheets plus free shipping in the US when you use promo code Ricochet. That's $50 off plus free US shipping right now at ballandbranch.com. That's a ball, B-O-L-L, and Branch.com, promo code Ricochet. BallandBranch.com, promo code Ricochet for your $50 off.

And our thanks to Ball and Branch for sponsoring the Ricochet podcast. They have been loyal advertisers for a long time, and we are really, really grateful that they are there. Before we go, I want to just ask one question here. Before we get to John Ratcliffe, who has been bold. Did anybody find it strange in the Democratic debates less than a year after the apocalypse of Kavanaugh that they didn't really – I don't think they mentioned – I watched them. Did anybody mention the Supreme Court or judges at all? I was listening for it. I didn't hear it.

All I heard was beating up on the criminal justice system for being racist. But I don't – I thought that they would have like a sacrifice to the gods for RBG's long, long life and live long and prosper or something because that's what they really should be campaigning on right right right um so uh while we have a moment this just happened uh president trump uh dropped uh the nomination of representative john rackliff the republican congressman from texas uh to be the uh what's it called now national intelligence director of national intelligence right the former d what used to be the DCI. Following questions about his – I guess he padded his resume, right? He said he arrested 300 illegal aliens in one day. How many did he arrest? Was it close or was it just kind of zero? I think it was probably zero.

So who's next? Can I just throw two bits here? One is he's doing the country of service because that's one of the most useless jobs there is. And so all this sturm and drang you're hearing from the left about, oh God, Dan Coats has resigned his DNI, the politicization of intelligence.

God, I mean, give me a break. So the job does not exist. It was just done to look like things are being done after 9-11 and went back to the old days when, as you were saying, Rob, the head of the CIA is also the director of central intelligence. It's his job or her job, Gina Haspel's job to manage the intelligence community. Just creating more layers of bureaucracy is not going to make us safer. No, on the contrary. The way – it was your boss, George W. Bush, who gave this to us, John, by the way. But putting the – shoving all the intelligence together and – actually, a lot of things got shoved together. Homeland Security. These – Intelligence above all, the various intelligence nodes or agencies, FBI should be in tension with CIA. We can't trust any of these people. They should be competing with each other, not shoved together in one bureaucracy where they're colluding. Well, the goal here wasn't to reduce tension between them. The goal

was, as stated, anyway, how it turned out obviously is instructive. But the goal was to have one central clearinghouse for separate strands of intelligence so that military intelligence and national security, NSA intelligence and CIA intelligence would come into one central office and then be sort of synthesized. What used to actually happen in the national security office, that desk used to do that. That's correct. The correct place for it all to come together is the White House, the National Security Council, full stop. Don't let the bureaucracy outside the White House get its stories straight before it goes over to the executive mansion, in my view. I think generally conservatives like competition between the bureaucracies as it reduces the ability of anyone to take over, but also appeals to our free market instincts, right? If they're all competing against each other, good, because maybe then the truth will emerge rather than people enforcing a kind of uniformity. But the other point I just wanted to make briefly is this whole nomination

was kind of a disaster because it makes you wonder how does trump pick who to select for a top candidate apparently he picked this uh guy rat congressman ratcliffe because he just liked the way he did during the muller hearings right i didn't really have any experience with the intelligence community didn't really you know you know he was a u.s attorney i think in eastern texas but that was about it and it it makes you wonder, how does the administration, Peter, how does the administration pick people for the most important jobs? It's whoever looked good on Fox News the night before, which means you may be up at any moment, John.

I was going to say, that did make me ask that question. I think you're likely. In fact, the phone is probably ringing while you're talking to us now. Well, I thought these were more of these Trump robocalls for the steaks and the vodka and the sheets. I didn't know it was actually the White House. I think if you would be the highest-ranking Ricochet member, I think you're now honor-bound to take whatever they you, because that's what members in high places is what Ricochet is all about. If you're listening to this podcast and you're a member, we are thrilled to have you here.

If you were listening to this podcast and you were one of the many, many, many people who say, I'm going to join, I'm going to join. I just, that's just eventually we would really like it if you joined now, if you joined today,

ricochet.com slash Rick, rich.com slash join. Very low rates for the podcast listener level. Got a lot of things planned, and we really need your help and support to keep doing this, but not obviously this way with John. Pretty soon we'll kick John back to Richard Epstein and we'll get James Lilacs back. Wait, are you sure about that? It'll be quality podcasting again. Why don't we switch it up for a few months and see how we do?

I like yellow tank tops. I'm getting used to the airy feeling of no cloth over most of my body, which is the Lilac. John makes the point. If you can think of the 7 billion people on the planet, if there's one who's as verbally adept if adept is the right word it as richard epstein that person would be james lilacs maybe james could hold his own against that would be a great podcast lilacs and epstein it would be good that's magic that's magic isn't that what they say in hollywood well that's gold. It's gold. They do say gold. I don't think they'd say gold about this.

But, you know, we just return it back to the affairs of state. Is that all right, fellas? All right. All right. I got two questions for you, John. And, I mean, we can obviously talk about anything else you want to talk about. But you're – we talking about national security. We now have a president United States who is actively negotiating with the Taliban for what happens in Afghanistan. How smart is that? How dumb is that? Or is it just just is it just realism? This goes back to my disagreement with Peter and I think my agreement with you about the election in the first place, which was I love Trump in terms of the domestic policies.

It was his foreign policies I just worried about, didn't know about. This kind of transactional approach to things would really worry me, and I worry you're seeing that here. I mean the Taliban are one of our greatest enemies. They gave a safe haven to Osama bin Laden and al now that we are offering to drop troop levels by significant amounts. And if the Taliban just say they promise they're in favor of peace and are willing to open negotiations – well, what the hell has been going on the last 10 years? They've been saying this for years. They're just going to agree. I hate to say it. It reminds me of the end of Vietnam, and I worry we're going to sell out our allies and we're going to hand over.

Okay. So, John, I don't want to stick up for Trump in this because I share those concerns, those fears even. But if you're Donald Trump, here's what they're telling you. Mr. President, for a decade now, we've spent between the cost of keeping our military in Afghanistan and all the other support attached to that mission in Afghanistan and direct foreign aid to Afghanistan. We've spent about $50 billion a year in Afghanistan. And Donald Trump says, oh, right. And have we got peace? And the answer is no. Actually, the situation situations remained about as fragile

as it is today for five six seven years and donald trump says well i don't know quite what to do but not that so what do you do john first of the thing to to tell him is that what you're doing is buying the prevention of another 9-11 style attack. We may have spent billions of dollars, but I think that still pales in comparison to the cost of that attack. Is that true though? I mean obviously the Taliban housed and protected Osama bin Laden, but the actual organization and the financing of that attack had nothing to do with the Taliban. The Taliban – this comes from just working on this, is that – but I'm not claiming any higher intelligence knowledge about this. But the thing terrorist groups need the most is a safe haven, a place like a friendly government that will let them operate.

That's why this and then ISIS- isis controlling territory that's the worst nightmare for i mean that's far worse than just like lone wolves coming back and so look at what they were able to mount i mean we should just forget the nylon tax think about the attacks went on london madrid i mean you go on and on it's because they don't have to worry about their own safety they can sit there and spend a lot of time planning these attacks on us so they're yeah i don't i don't have any expectation the taliban are going to turn their backs on al-qaeda and say oh no fine we're going to start policing the country and making sure there's no al-qaeda guys around okay so you're donald trump you're donald trump again and you say wait a minute let's just pay him off

it's not going to cost 50 billion dollars a year to pay off the taliban let's cut it to 10 i mean there's something again I'm not holding a brief for him, but there's something I actually think probably in some way or other salutary about having a guy in the Oval Office who just challenges all the premises of the foreign policy establishment. This thing has been going on for over a decade now. And this is, all you can tell me is that it's preventing another – we're not making progress here. So I guess what I'm saying is if people are leaking stuff, why aren't they leaking the plans, the obviously sensible plans that Donald Trump is overruling? Because there aren't any, right?

Well, there aren't any. He only has three choices, right? Any president, whoever, has three choices right the any you know president whoever has three choices increase the troops right make redouble that twice redouble the commitment draw down the troops we've done that too or just stay pat and use the presence of troops as leverage to get concessions from the Taliban. So really, all we're really arguing here is the order of things. Do you reduce the troop numbers before the Taliban makes the concessions that you're demanding? Or do you show a willingness to maintain the troop levels that we have in Afghanistan? And it seems to me it's not really a financial argument. The problem we have with

the military right now is that we don't really know what they're supposed to be doing, not only in Afghanistan or in Europe. I mean there are plenty of troops, U.S. troops deployed all around the world in places that they really no longer have a purpose. Whereas John makes an argument that there is a purpose to American troops in Afghanistan. John, don't you feel at least a little bit of the Molly Hemingway impulse? Bring them all home. No, I don't you feel at least a little bit of the Molly Hemingway impulse? Bring them all home. In exchange for the amount of peace we have created is actually really small investment compared to what would happen if rising enemies, either terrorists or other countries, actually disrupt that order. And it's hard for us to calculate that because we don't see it because our use of troops abroad has stopped the jungle from returning. And it's an amazing achievement, actually. It's just people don't realize since 1945, this is the longest period without any war between the great powers in modern history.

And it costs us money, but it hasn't cost us much compared to the cost of World War I, World War II. Right. What could have come next? But American troops in Europe and in various other places, it seems like they're a quaint, almost a sepia-toned photograph from a bygone era, protecting us from dangers that don't really exist. You don't think Putin would be sitting around in Warsaw by now if we had no troops? So, John, I'm actually – I am actually – China, I mean China, even with our troops out there, China is on – is engaging in a huge buildup. It pains me. Or a hegemonic sphere out there. It pains me to admit this, John, but I'm with you totally.

Oh, finally. And my view on what Trump is doing in Korea and what Trump is doing now in Afghanistan is, Mr. President, stop. You need to tell us, contrast this with when H.R. McMaster was the national security advisor in the White House and they had a big review of Afghanistan policy and the president, this president, Donald Trump, gave a big speech, I think it was at the Naval Academy, on what our policy was going to be in Afghanistan. And it wasn't perfect and it was continue the status quo, but we're going to do a little more of this, a little more of that. And you know what?

The John Yoo argument, things could have been worse, is totally true. And what we have now is we don't have a – we have nobody at the Pentagon anybody can name. Who's the acting right who's the acting secretary of defense nobody and mike at least john you isn't it i'm on fox i could and mike i have the feeling that the secretary of state actually is thinking strategic thoughts we know that john bolton we worry he's going to be running for senate in kansas in a few weeks well that's a problem but the president needs to say what he thinks he's doing in North Korea. He needs he needs. OK, I confess this is the speechwriter's inclination here. I grant you.

But he needs to explain himself to the country. Yeah. A strategy. As we say, a plan beats no plan any. And speaking of plans, if you're planning on making a software purchase, which a lot of us are, and if you're tied down at work, don't let your software search kill your summer. Now you can ditch the office overtime and find options for your business in minutes with CapTara. Read hundreds of thousands of reviews and make finding the right software for your business a breeze at captara.com slash ricochet. CapTara is the leading free online resource to help you find the best software solution for your business with over 950,000 reviews of products from real software users. Discover everything you need to make an informed decision. Search more than 700 specific categories of software, everything from project management to email marketing to yoga studio management software.

John, that's yoga studio management software for you. No matter what kind of software your business needs, Capterra makes it easy to discover the right solution fast. Join the millions of people who use Capterra each month to find the right tools for their business. Visit Capterra.com slash Ricochet for free today to find the tools to make an informed software decision for your business. capterra.com slash ricochet capterra. That's C-A-P-T-E-R-R-A dot com slash ricochet. Capterra is software selection simplified. And our thanks to Capterra for sponsoring the Ricochet podcast. And before we – I know we're going to wrap it up.

Isn't it – I mean, I think it's sort of interesting that all the – of the three advertisers that are supporting the Ricochet podcast, by the way, if you're listening and you're not supporting it, you could. All those – they all say the same thing, kind of like, come to our thing. Check out the reviews. Right. We all have reviews, like customer reviews. And there's something so incredibly cool and refreshing about that the idea like yeah just check it out like you could go you can look at it these are our customers and they're giving us you know feedback and that that feels

like a that has been a sea change the past 10 years in american business you rob because they're all about luxurious high-end elitist living live Live in a nice bed, have the best clients. No one will bother you, sir. We're here for your luxury and pleasure. If only. Peter. Yes. We've got two things to talk about before we let you go.

One is something that surprisingly made me feel bad for a whole lot of reasons ronald i think i know where you're going here it made me ronald reagan made a mildly racist remark 40 years ago we're racist i don't know mildly whatever you want to call it um it was racist i think nixon yeah uh and it's released in a nixon tape and it's released and and chronicled by actually a friend of mine, Tim Naftali, who used to run the Nixon Library. And everyone kind of went ape about it, as it were.

Unintended. Unintended, yeah. And it made me feel bad. It made me feel bad for Reagan's memory. It made me feel bad because it was like, I wish he hadn't said it. It also made me feel bad for reagan's memory it made me feel bad because you know it was like i wish he hadn't said it um it also made me feel mad that that like that there's an attempt a rear

guard attempt to pluck something from the past right to diminish his accomplishments really up you know 10 15 years later. Right. Right. There's still people out to get them. There's still people out to get him. Well, uh, if you listen to the tape, he said what he said,

I wish he hadn't said it. I'm sure somewhere up above he's wishing he hadn't said it himself. So to, to be said again, everybody's human. Ronald Ray, even Ronald Reagan was in some ways, many ways,

a man of his time and his place. And, uh, people talk like that back then. What, what has to be insisted upon though, is that Reagan has an unusually large record. We have thousands of letters in his own handwriting. We have hundreds

of speeches and radio talks in his own handwriting. We have his diaries. When he was president, he was writing diaries that I'm sure he knew would go into archives, but he made notes and kept at least partial diaries before he became president and this is a man who was a famous from the time he was in his 20s people would meet ronald reagan and write down what he said to them and in all of those millions and millions of words many of them in his own hand this is the only yeah only expression of anything on just i still don't quite like the idea of calling the words racist it was a slur i think is more accurate ronald dragan was no racist there was he attended uh let me just tell this final he attended eureka

college which was founded in it was one of the places there was, when he was a young man at Eureka, there was still a tree on the campus known as the recruiting tree. And that's where the union recruiting officer came to recruit kids from Eureka College to fight for the North in the Civil War. There was a young, there was an African-American woman, of course, they they were all young but there was an african-american woman in ronald reagan's class they corresponded with each other into their 80s this he was not a realist he just was not can i can i throw in when i an important lesson from constitutional law sure that explains this it's's always Nixon's fault. Always Nixon's fault.

It's almost like – it's like Nixon drew out the worst – That's true actually. That is true actually. Have you ever listened to the Nixon tapes? They are full of Nixon saying this kind of stuff. And I could see a governor and other politicians having to talk that way because they thought they had to get through to Nixon. It reminds me like this. Remember there's a great Bob Dole line.

He was at a funeral, and he saw Ford, Carter, and Nixon sitting together. And he said, hear no evil, see no evil, and evil. And evil. Right? Henry Kissinger, the record on Kissinger is as voluminous even more so than on Ronald Reagan. And you make a point. As far as I am aware, the only time Henry Kissinger spoke crudely or in a way that he now regrets was when he was talking to Richard Nixon. We shouldn't blame Richard Nixon. But still, there's something to it, I think. There's an attitude of trying to – you try to tar the policies with this kind of moral argument.

And I'm not quite sure it's – I'm not quite sure. This certainly is not a unique moment. But I believe that you could be a – you could probably be a horrible, virulent racist and still support the Democratic Party and its progressive ideals. A lot of them were. A lot of them were. A lot of the leading Democrats were. And you could probably not have a racist bone in your body and still believe that big government and big government programs and the war on poverty were abject failure. Or you could be like Harry Truman, one of Ronald Reagan's particular favorites. big government and big government programs and the war on poverty were abject failure.

And you could, or you could be like Harry Truman, one of Ronald Reagan's particular favorites. Ronald Reagan campaigned for Harry Truman for president when Truman ran in 48. Truman, we know, used the N-word routinely, and yet he desegregated the armed forces. Truman used anti-Semitic language, again, just routinely, a casually anti-Semitic language. And yet he recognized the state of Israel within hours after that state declared its own independence. So there's something about a certain time, a certain place, people spoke casually. And I just have to say, Harry Truman's desegregating the armed forces and recognizing Israel count a lot – count for a lot more than smutty, slurry language used in private. I would go with Rob's. I would make Rob's point even stronger.

We shouldn't care what they think in private. We should measure them by their acts. I mean would we say because Lyndon Johnson was an indisputable racist who said the worst things on the tapes, therefore the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 voting rights are somehow illegitimate? I'm sure no Democrat would agree with that. Or Lincoln, because as a young man, he was in favor of colonization with freed slaves of Africa. That means that the Emancipation Proclamation and winning the Civil War and his own death are somehow illegitimate. This is an argument of the left.

They want to dirty all the acts by the people's private motivations. We should measure them by what they did, not what they thought. It's not even what they said in public. It's what they thought. Yeah. And so another way of putting that is we should measure things by their facts and not by the the drama and the theater around them so on the facts the president united states president donald trump said some very mean things about my hometown baltimore maryland right i i my family a lot of my family still lives um and people said it was racist. You weren't raised in Elijah Cummings' district, though, were you, Rob? No. Well, give gerrymandering a chance here.

Yeah, that's right, exactly. Sooner or later, it would be. What sort of astonishes me is the instant recoil at the nasty language and he says he's blunt and it's mean and it's mean-spirited and it's personal and all those things, but he is in fact correct about – the left and to the sort of the sort of left-wing establishment um then papering over the problems and the problems in baltimore you can paper over them all you want but it has a sky-high homicide rate it's it's the quality of life has declined the city's emptying out businesses are closing it is, in fact, a example. It is on the path to Detroit. It's a glide path to Detroit. And there is not one Republican or conservative or even moderate that you could point to had anything to do with the decline of Baltimore.

This is entirely a machine state, a machine city, a machine state. And there seems to be zero appetite for the country's journalistic chit-chatters to investigate this. Once in the New York Times this year, they did a very, very strong piece about it. And even then, they tiptoed around the problems. You could see it made them sick. And even then, they tiptoed around the problems. You could tell from the writing that it made them sick to have to report it and they were thrilled they with the glee with which they allowed donald trump to say the same thing so they could back away from it it's like there's donald if donald trump says something is

true it allows you to say it's false even if you know deep down it is true and it is baltimore's in big big trouble and it's in big big trouble because urban politics and policy in this country are absolutely bananas what's what happens in in los angeles or san francisco or chicago or baltimore or in the past detroit these are all disasters for progressive politics and no one wants to say it. Rob, not only a coda on what you just said, I just checked on this. The last Republican mayor of Baltimore left office in 1967 and the last time the city elected a Republican to the city council was 1939.

Wow. council was 1939 wow and that all of that aside it's a great city it's a beautiful city has incredibly beautiful buildings wonderful architecture a great downtown incredibly gorgeous parks and squares and a sort of a indefatigable kind of population of of weird kooky fantastic eccentrics delicious food it's a beautiful beautiful place and one of the best one of the most beautiful ballparks in the entire nation sure and yards is gorgeous and one of the first one the first ones of that of it of that yes um public private partnerships as always. Speaking of public-private partnerships, John Yoo is on his way to becoming national intelligence director. You heard it here first. You heard it here first. Exactly.

And we have to thank our partners, Blinds.com, Ball & Branch, and Capterra. Please support them for supporting us. They are very, very great partners to us. We would like you to be a partner to us, so please go to Ricochet.com slash join and join. It's not expensive, but we really do need you. If you enjoy the show, please take a few minutes to leave a review on iTunes. It actually really does help. They have complicated brainiac algorithms that help new listeners discover this civil, interesting, funny conversation from a decidedly different perspective

than what you get everywhere else. John, you're about to be on Laura Ingraham's show. Is that right? Yeah, we're actually going to talk about, this is an interesting segment, which Democratic candidate is the worst for police and law enforcement in the country? Really? And it's a great idea. And I got to – in the law, we like to say this is a race to the bottom. Well, thank you for taking time out of your busy. I had a great time. Like I said, I'm ready for the Lilacs U trade deadline switch and hosting. Well, we'll be in touch. we'll be in touch we'll be in touch

thanks a lot by the way tell Richard Epstein we said hello if you can get a word in next week next week fellas next week why do I do just as you say

why must I just give you your way why do I do just as you say? Why must I just give you your way? Why do I sigh? Why don't I try to forget? It must have been that something lovers call fate Kept me saying I had to wait I saw them all Just couldn't fall Till we met

It had to be you It had to be you. I wandered around and I finally found the somebody who could make me be true And could make me be blue And even be glad Just to be sad Thinking of you. Some others I've seen.

Might never be cross Or try to be boss But they wouldn't do For nobody else Gave me a thrill With all your faults I love you still It had to be you

Wonderful you It had to be you Ricochet! Join the conversation. This is going to be the best show ever. I can hear. Hello. There you go. Oh, now we can hear you. For a minute, we heard you.

You had it all set up. Hello. Hello. Hello.