The Ricochet Podcast - Wha' Happen?

Episode Date: June 9, 2017

Long Parkcasting We’re all over the globe physically and all over the map topically this week as we cover the British elections with our guests Toby Young from The Spectator (read his take on the election here) and we’ve got the great Andrew McCarthy on Comey, the NSA, and Trump’s legal conundrums. Also, Rob is in a park in London. Yes, in a park. Now, that’s devotion. Music from this week’s... Source

We have special news for you. The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer. Are you going to send me or anybody that I know to a camp? We have people that are stupid. The FBI is honest. The FBI is strong. And the FBI is and always will be independent. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall. It's the Ricochet Podcast with Rob Long, London, and John Gabriel in Arizona.

I'm James Lennox. We'll be talking today to Toby Young about the British election and Annie McCarthy about Comey. Let's have ourselves a podcast. Bye-bye. Welcome, everybody, to the Ricochet Podcast at number 356, if you're making hash marks on the side of your cell. We're brought to you by several fine people, including Away Travel.

Your luggage should not cost more than your plane ticket, should it? No. Away Travel's luggage is designed with the highest quality materials, and it's still under $300. For $20 off that price, go to awaytravel.com slash ricochet and use the promo code ricochet during your checkout. And we're brought to you by ZipRecruiter. Ricochet listeners can now post jobs on ZipRecruiter for free. That's right, free. Just go to ZipRecruiter.com slash free trial.

And we're brought to you by SaneBox. Yes, SaneBox is back and they sort through all of your email and remove all of the trivial stuff into a different folder so the only messages in your inbox are the ones you really actually want to see. Visit SaneBox.com, ricochet today, and they'll throw in an extra $25 credit

on top of that two-week free trial. And we're also brought to you by the Miracles of telecommunication that allow us to speak to Rob Long, who is standing in the dark in a park in London. And, Rob, the lights are going out all over Europe, we understand, but there's still time for people to light up the savings with that new Ricochet tier account, right? That's exactly right. I can hear you now now so start the spiel go spieling

well as you know a lot of people say listen I love Ricochet I love the podcast I want to support you guys but I don't want to ever be like posting on Ricochet and I don't want to be you know going through all that and I don't want to pay the five dollars but I do want to support you and so what they've done

up until now has been simply to do nothing well we do need you and we do want you to you. And so what they've done up until now has been simply to do nothing. Well, we do need you. We do want you to be members like we are with us. So we called your bluff. We're doing, we have a podcast listener tier membership. That's $2.50 a month. That's nothing. That's practically free.

You get to listen to all the podcasts in the super feed. You get to comment on the podcast. You get to read the whole site, including the famous member feed um and here's why we're doing it because we know that if you join us at two dollars fifty cents a month you'll eventually want to bump yourself up to five dollars a month but even if you don't you'll be supporting us and we really do need you please don't put this off um if you've been listening and you're not a member trust me we need now the reason that you may have heard Rob go in and out a little bit is that he literally is standing in a park in the evening in London,

and we're going to go to him for an update as to what people are saying about the election, which is another thing to think about. But Peter Gabriel, Peter Gabriel, that's hilarious. I was going to say Peter Robinson, but half my brain wanted to say John Gabriel is sitting in for Peter Robinson. But Peter Gabriel actually would be a great guest with his quirky Britishness and his Genesis history and the rest of it. John, what say you? Save me. I want to be your sledgehammer, James.

Thanks for the introduction. Actually, I've been confused with people. I used to use that in the 80s to pick up chicks. Oh, yeah, he's my uncle, Peter Gabriel. But no, no relation, sadly. It's amazing to read about Venezuela in the morning and then in the evening see Jeremy Corbyn so close to power, a guy who repeatedly praised Hugo Chavez. And it just seems like the electorates in much of the world is just meeting out punishment. It's not about party.

It's not about policy. We go on about the ideologies and populism and nationalism and all these things. It's just basically a big sledgehammer so to speak to just punish whatever party is in power and uh that's what we're seeing um you know if you if you've read your greek um hubris and i guess that's what may it seemed like a brilliant idea for her to call a snap election and it wasn't so it wasn't so fine so um it'll be interesting to see how the UK deals with these things. And I don't know. I saw all sorts of reports coming out of there blaming one issue or another. But it just seems like voters are in a mood to slap people around for a while.

Rob, you're there for some reason. What say you? Well, for some reason, i'm here just to hang out on my last three days of hiatus before i start work again and in on monday um i i i wish i could make a kind of that cogent argument that john was making that it looks like voters are just trying to disrupt the power structure i'm not sure that's true. I think we're looking at Anglo-American voters, and I would say European voters in general,

very ambivalent about globalism, very ambivalent about international, sort of what we'd call risk capitalism, but also very ambivalent about large government. There isn't... A parliamentary system is designed to avoid exactly what's happening in Britain, which is this kind of confusion and mixed messages.

Our system, usually what happens is we elect a president, especially a president with a controversial agenda, like an Obama or Trump, and then we immediately punish that president by taking away whatever leverage he has in the houses of Congress and Senate. Healers, of course, are different, but the voters have done pretty much the same thing.

And I don't think it's because they're just mad. I think they're mad almost in the British sense. They're kind of crazy. They don't know what they want. They are aware of the tradeoffs of each system, and they're looking for this way to, you know, I think in America, to get everything they want, all the goodies, without really having to pay for it. And the irony here is I think, I mean, okay, this is me big thinking, interrupt me when I'm making no sense,

but I think the world has discovered that technology has enabled the individual in enormous ways. And what they're looking for is a technological solution, kind of the Uber for government or that kind of solution. And no one's

offering it there. So if anything, the message in Britain, and I think the message coming up in the United States is going to be generational. Huge win for labor with young people. Which is crazy, right? Because Jeremy Corbyn is this doddering old 70s socialist.

He has the same appeal as Bernie Sanders to some people. He's just going to give you what you want, and he's going to pay for it by taking it from other people who've got plenty. So, I mean, Corbyn believes, I don't know if he believes it or not, I don't care, but that variety of leftism just knows that there's an endless number of golden eggs being excreted in the back closet by the guys in the spats and the top hats and the walking sticks with diamonds on top, right?

So all we need to do is just crack those and give out the proceeds to other people. And if it doesn't work at some point, if three or four years down the line you're rationing toilet paper down to one square a day, well well you know we'll we'll nationalize that bridge when we come to it but the kids are happy because it's it's a repudiation of that awful system of capitalism which is nothing but an exploitation structure that accomplished nothing what we need is more government and granddaddy corbin is the one to give it fine so right but but the younger generation is walking around with essentially all the computing power of the moon landings in its pocket. And it has incredibly unlimited demands for its personalization and its personal service and a kind of a culture of individuality.

That's what's so bizarre. I really don't understand it. I first started when I realized that Barack Obama had this incredibly young, youthful field of youth, I mean. And he felt cool and hip and tomorrow. And yet his policy, especially Obamacare, was this 1970s retread big government behemoth. Basically, he wanted to give us all the kind of health care you have, the VA hospitals, right? Just this top-down, horrible system. And I think, I mean, look,

for instance, voters in Scotland. In Scotland, in many ways, they repudiated the Scottish National Party. The idea of Scottish independence went down. All those middle-range, moderate parties lost support in Britain last night. So, whatever's happening it's

a it's happening it's the schizophrenia of the electorate yeah not just schizophrenic in in the u.s it's schizophrenic here too well it goes back to what makes you feel good about yourself i mean obama made everybody feel good about themselves for voting for obama i'm a better person because i'm voting for him thought a lot uh let's look at america where a lot of people feel that their self-identification as a good person is directly proportional to the amount of hate they have for Donald Trump in other words I'm a good person because I hate Donald Trump and we were looking at these wonderful photographs of people watching the hearings the other day in DC they threw open the doors to the bars why they

opened the taps people streamed in actually expecting some sort of impeachment-level testimony to come from this. And what you got were these fallen faces as they all dragged on. And I'm looking at these guys, and you can just tell. There's one guy in the front with a little scruff and the black glasses. He's a good person. He's a smart person, okay? He's smart, and he lives in D.Cc and he works for a non-governmental organization that is sending moisturizer to africa where they have chapped problems okay so he's a good person that's why he's in dc and that's why he's doing all that so for them to actually find their dreams

of uh the end of donald trump so soon come come crashing down oh god it's horrible however will they do it john you listened to the testimony. What say you about what we heard yesterday? Well, kind of conflating the last two arguments, what made me a small government advocate was watching governmental proceedings at any level of government and how these people pinned so many hopes on these hearings.

You know, there are people, gosh, I waste too much time on Twitter, but it's as if these people thought, you know, they had a hashtag Comey day, like this was our liberation, like he was going to come in and the tanks were going to roll in the White House and the revolution would begin. It seemed pretty apparent pretty quickly that not a whole lot was going to happen. I think Comey made Trump look bad somewhat, but he made himself look terrible to me. He always kind of keeps this pose of the last honest man in Washington, but he showed that he was a big political operator like everyone else. It's kind of hard to trust his motives, obviously. Trump didn't come out smelling like a rose, but it wasn't. And here's the photo of Trump and Putin

together grinning and laughing at how they stole the election there were there were very few major bombshells i i think the largest bombshell that i saw was loretta lynch telling comey don't refer to the situation with hillary as an investigation call it a matter anyone matter okay yeah it's okay i'll do that and that seems worse than anything Trump did. It seems Comey just puts the worst interpretation on everything with Trump, which is understandable, looking at how Trump created so many of these problems by tweeting about it too much instead of just keeping his fingers tied behind his back. Yeah, Hillary's problems were not just a matter but dark matter, theorized but never actually proven to exist. Rob, you're watching it from over there.

What did you feel in London? Because the BBC, for example, on the day of the election was putting Comey's testimony on the front page of their website, not just because it looked at the cookie and said, you live in America. It was big news to them. It's big news, yeah. It was not as big news in Britain, obviously, because it was on the eve of an election, and that was the big news. But people watched it, and look, everyone here in Europe hates Trump, except for a few people. He's not a popular American leader.

That alone has made him rise in my estimation, because that's usually a good sign for American leaders if Europeans look down their nose at him. But I say this as somebody who's not a Trump supporter, but Trump comes off, through Comey's testimony, seeming like a normal person, maybe not the most sophisticated president, maybe a little reckless in his comments, maybe the kind of guy who shoots from the hip and you know says stuff he shouldn't say but he sounds like a normal guy having a normal conversation about a normal thing what's amazing to me is how quickly comey has gone from a person that where i a democrat or partisan democrat or even a moderate democrat or even a moderate unsure hillary supporter there's nothing this guy could say to get out of a doghouse with me or even a moderate Democrat, or even a moderate, unsure Hillary supporter,

there's nothing this guy could say to get out of the doghouse with me. He crossed the line when the investigation of Hillary Clinton, when he made his large speech in which he all but accused her of wrongdoing and then said there was no wrongdoing. But I agree with John. The thing no one's talking about is how corrupt the investigation of Hillary Clinton was, how much pressure there was on him to dump it. That's an investigation that would be worth having.

I think we already know that what Donald Trump did was kind of slap on the back and say, come on, dude, do my bro a favor. That's not nearly as dark as the stuff they were doing in the Obama administration to try to squash what was a legitimate inquiry into what was legitimate wrongdoing on the part

of the Secretary of State. And it all goes back to, it's an amazing thing to me, it all goes back to the origin, right? People said, you know what, if Donald Trump didn't want to be here, he should have made that stupid tweet about, I hope that, Comey better hope there aren't any tapes, right?

And there's some truth to that, because all he did was sort of poke the bear, and he didn't have to do that. That was self-destructive. But the reason we're here is because there was an investigation of Hillary Clinton, because she mishandled classified data. We know that is true because she violated State Department and government rules about which server to use. We know that is true because when she was asked to hand over her emails, 30,000 of them went missing mysteriously. We know that is true.

That if Hillary Clinton had only been an honest person and been forthcoming, she'd probably be president right now and we wouldn't be sitting here. But the reason we're here, the reason there's a Comey investigation is because it looks like Comey was tired of getting pushed around by politicians. I got pushed around by the Obama types and we got pushed around by the Trump types. And then when Trump tweeted that thing, he said, no more. I'm going public. That's what it seems like to me. But it all could have been avoided.

Yep. But we'll never hear about it again. I mean, we'll never have an investigation into Hillary. All of this stuff is over. All people remember is the next time that Trump pokes the bear and makes a tweet, and we'll go through some different iteration of all this. I almost wish we had a speaker's corner around here in Minneapolis

where people could essentially... Rob, you're in London. Are you close to Hyde Park where they have the famous speaker's corner? No, I walked through there yesterday. It was a little bit drizzly. In London? Yeah, exactly. It was a little drizzly and cold in

june in london but what was funny about it was that uh that there was nobody there it was usually some insane person you know the last time i was in speaker's corner as well there was nobody there and i expected that you know you when you're heading there you expect to see all these people walking along with with crates and boxes under their arms right they're going to get there and set up and climb up you know, elevate themselves by 12 inches and then start talking. But nowadays... Luggage is a huge problem for those people.

Luggage is a giant problem for those people. There's no solution to it either. Completely unsolvable problem. Did we lose connection with Ron? We did lose connection with Ron, didn't we? Interesting. Yeah yeah so luggage um the thing james even even 9 000 miles can you mute can you mute can you can you can you mute rob please thank you i can mute myself i'm muted now mute yourself thank you uh for those of you who are interested in such things the point for rob to actually interrupt and spoil the

process is after i had made the connective tissue. But I hadn't really yet. What I was going to talk about was sort of if you were bringing a crate to Speaker's Corners, it would be great if it had a handle and wheels like modern-day luggage. And it would be great if that thing was made by Away because once you've used a suitcase by Away, it sets a standard for you for all other luggage you're ever going to look at in the rest of your life. Away Travel was started to create the perfect luggage and they did it the approach is simple create special objects that are designed to be resilient resourceful and essential to the way you travel today and they use high quality materials while offering a much lower price compared to other brands they cut out the middlemen and sell directly to you nine colors four sizes the carry-on the bigger carry-on the

medium and the large for extended stays all made with premium lightweight german polycarbonate and each piece has four 360 degree spinner wheels now the carry-on sizes are compliant with all the major u.s airlines and their tsa approved combination lock is built right at the top so you can snap it together and prevent theft removable washable laundry bag keeps you dirty clothes separate from the clean and both sizes of the carry-on by the way are able to charge your cell phones your tablets your e-readers and anything powered by usb cord lifetime warranty anything breaks they'll fix it or replace it for life 100 day free live trial if any point you decide that's not for me you can return it for a free refund but you know what you're not going to return it because it's awesome what i love about

it is not the fact that it fits so nicely in the overhead bins, the fact that the handle just pops up great, and the mobility you get with those four wheels. I love the fact that I don't have to hunt for an outlet in a strange airport. You know what it's like. You've got people camping by the outlet, sucking up the juice. No, you have power in your suitcase. Just plug right in and charge yourself up.

Special offer to you, the listener of Ricochet, $20 off a suitcase if you visit awaytravel.com slash ricochet and use the promo code ricochet during the checkout. One more time, that's awaytravel.com slash ricochet and use the promo code ricochet as checkout. $20 off any suitcase. And we thank

Away Travel for sponsoring this, the Ricochet podcast. Now... We certainly do. If I could just break it for one minute and say that I am using an Away Travel for sponsoring this, the Ricochet podcast. We certainly do. If I could just break it for one minute and say that I am using an Away Travel suitcase right now. Not for that minute. It's in the hotel. It is fantastic. I'm a huge, huge, huge fan.

Anyway, just thought I'd throw that in. Now we go back to England as well. And Rob, who's on the ground and soaking up all the tabloids, I imagine, is going to have lots of questions for Toby Young. He's a British journalist. He's the author of How to Lose Friends and Alienate People. And that's a tale of his stint in New York as a contributing editor at Vanity Fair. Served as a judge in seasons five and six of the television show Top Chef and co-founder of the West London Free School. He's an advocate of classical liberalism.

You can follow him on Twitter at AtToadMeister. That's right. Take a look at the Ricochet page for the exact spelling of that. Toby, we're looking at the election. Explain what happened. Well, Theresa May, the British Prime Minister, is about to meet with some representatives of the European Union to negotiate the UK's exit from the European Union following the result of the EU referendum last year. Now, she reasoned that if she had a larger majority in the House of Commons, she would be in a stronger negotiating position. So about

six weeks ago, she called a general election in the hope of increasing her parliamentary majority. Before the election was called, she had a majority of about 17. And she was riding high in the opinion polls. And at the beginning of the election campaign, it looked as though she was going to win a landslide to rival those won by Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair in years past. But as the election campaign wore on, she turned out to be less effective as a campaigner than Jeremy Corbyn, the hard-left leader of the British Labour Party. Now, in spite of a good deal of toxic baggage, such as inviting representatives of the Irish Republican terrorist organization, the IRA, to tea with him at the House of Commons only days after they tried to murder Margaret Thatcher with a bomb in the hotel she was staying in in Brighton, in spite of meeting with Hamas and Hezbollah and describing them as his friends, in spite of laying a wreath at one of the Palestinian terrorists who murdered the Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics, in spite of all this toxic baggage, as well as a ludicrous string of unfunded policy promises.

He nevertheless did better than expected. In particular, he did better than expected with 18 to 24-year-olds because one of the unfunded promises he made in Labour's manifesto was to cut tuition fees, reduce tuition fees, which amount to about $15,000 a year, to zero. So for 18-year-olds, that was a pretty attractive bribe. It would effectively save them, if he was elected, $45,000. So not many of them were able to resist that temptation. So anyway, in the end, last night, Labour did much better than expected. The Conservatives' majority was reduced. They no longer, Theresa May no longer has a majority in the House of Commons.

And in order to continue in government, which she clearly intends to do, she requires the support of the Democratic Unionists, a rather anti-Diluvian Protestant group, which has 10 MPs in Northern Ireland. And to give you a flavor of what the DUP were like, they recently sued a museum for having an exhibition about Charles Darwin. So we'll see how that works out. Hey, Toby, it's Rob Long here.

I'm actually in London. Are you? Yeah, I came in yesterday. I was walking around last night in Mayfair, and there's a lot of glum-looking faces out in front of the conservative clubs that a lot of people sort of, I think, are being over-served or over-serving themselves in misery. So I understand you're not a fan of Jeremy Corbyn,

and I understand sort of the technical part of, like, bribing young people. But were there any sort of larger, more worrisome things other than just a bad campaign run by a bad campaigner? It seems like in years past, Americans have least expected that Britain had more than two major parties, but it looks like the smaller parties, the moderate parties or the middle parties, they kind of disappeared. That a country that voted for Brexit seems now to have, could be interpreted as having cold feet? I mean, Theresa May made it very clear that a vote for her and a vote for the Conservatives was a vote to strengthen her hand in her Brexit negotiations. And it seems like the voters said, well, we don't want that. Are there any other larger interpretations here, or is it just,

ah, she's allowed to candidate, and he offered the money, so that's how that works? Well, you know, in situations like this, the pundits are out in force trying to kind of read the runes and interpret the tea leaf. Yeah. And one – well, okay, well, let me gaze into my empty teacup. Certainly some people have interpreted this as the revenge of the youth who don't want to leave europe at all but it's quite hard to put too much credence on that interpretation partly because voting for jeremy corbyn wasn't a particularly effective way of registering a protest about Brexit because Jeremy Corbyn has embraced Brexit.

And secondly, the campaign to get Britain out of the European Union was a cross-party campaign. It's not something that just the Conservatives were campaigning for. The whole issue cuts across party lines. And also, some candidates who are clearly Eurosceptic leavers won in unlikely circumstances, such as Zach Goldsmith, a billionaire Tory candidate in Richmond who lost his seat following the E-referendum in a by-election last year and regained it last night. So I think that would be hard, I think, to read too much into last night's election as a sort of rejection of Brexit. And also, I think you're right that the smaller parties have been squeezed. We've seen a larger percentage of the vote for the two main political parties than we have done for quite some time in a British general election. But it's also worth bearing in mind that Theresa May polled 42% of the popular vote,

which is a larger share than almost every previous successful party leader, going right back to Margaret Thatcher when she won her largest landslide, I think in 1983. So there isn't much evidence, actually, even though the number of Conservative seats has been reduced, there isn't much evidence that the, even though the number of conservative seats has been reduced,

there isn't much evidence that the public are disillusioned with her or are getting cold feet about Brexit. And I think that the outcome of this election, even though there's a lot of noise and fury at the moment and a lot of howling protest from Corbyn and his acolytes who are claiming that they effectively won, even though they polled a lower percentage of the popular vote and won fewer seats than the Conservatives. I think that, in all likelihood, Theresa May or another Conservative leader will remain in office and will steer

us out of the European Union over the coming months. The Brexit negotiations start in ten days' time, and at the moment it doesn't look like they're going to be postponed. But if, assuming that if the Tories had had a stronger leader, a better campaigner, do you think they would have done better, or is it just the mood of the country?

Well, it's always hard to speculate when it comes to these sorts of counterfactuals. I mean, she certainly wasn't a natural campaigner. She was awkward on the stump. She wasn't good when meeting ordinary people. She didn't have Jeremy Corbyn's flair for campaigning.

I mean, he's been a kind of rabble-rousing, left-wing populist campaigner since he first entered Parliament in 1983. So this was like a duck to water for him, whereas she is a much more awkward, buttoned-up vicar's daughter who doesn't enjoy the kind of human dimension of politics to nearly the same extent as he clearly does. But interestingly, there are a few winners on the conservative side from this general election campaign, but one standout is Ruth Davidson. And I know that your listeners may be... She's a curious creature.

She's an out lesbian. She's married to another woman. But she is a dyed-in-the-wool conservative. She's the leader of the Scottish Conservative Party. And she actually won seats in Scotland from the Scottish Nationalist Party. The Scottish Nationalist Party had a really bad night. Alex Salmond, the previous leader of the party, lost his seat. The present leader of the Scottish Nationalist Party in the House of Commons lost his parliamentary seat. She, Ruth Davidson, did extraordinarily well. And I think some conservatives are now fantasizing that perhaps Theresa May can remain in office for a couple of years, take us out of the European Union, somehow arrange for Ruth Davidson, who is an absolute out-and-out, 100% copper-bottomed natural, for Ruth Davidson to enter the House

of Parliament, become House of the Parliament, become leader of the Conservative Party, and lead us to victory, crushing Jeremy Corbyn in 2019. That is a spectacular story that can only happen, I think, in the British Isles. Copper-bottomed. I'm still dealing with a stonking word like copper-bottomed. Well, it's a homophobic slur, I think. I can only assume it's a homophobic slur. So I have two questions before I turn you over to John Gabriel. One is about the little party.

So is Scottish nationalism or Scottish independence dead? And two, is UKIP dead? Well, UKIP had a very bad night. UKIP polled a far smaller percentage of the popular vote than it did in 2015, and it didn't win a single MP, and the leader of UKIP, Paul Nuttall, who rather unfortunately looks quite a lot like me, often mistaken for him, resigned in the early hours of this morning. And it looks as though Nigel Farage, who has resigned and then come back to lead the party again no less than four times, is going to come back and lead UKIP again.

He cannot bear to be out of the spotlight for more than about 30 seconds. But it was a bad night for UKIP. UKIP were a one-policy party. They had one reason to be, and that was to take Britain out of the European Union. And they effectively achieved their objective last year. So they are now a party with no political point whatsoever. And I think that was reflected in their poor showing yesterday. Scottish nationalists, yes. Nicola Sturgeon stood on a platform of effectively wanting a second Scottish independence referendum, having lost the last Scottish independence referendum in 2014.

She didn't lose it by that much. It was 55% of Scots voted to remain in the United Kingdom, 45% voted to leave, but she lost nonetheless. And she's been agitating for a second referendum because, like UKIP, the SNP is really just a single-issue party, and its sole point is to take Scotland out of the Union. And it looks like a second Scottish independence referendum was roundly rejected by the scottish people yesterday in spite of britain's decision to come out of the eu and in spite of the fact that the scots uh by a majority of something like two-thirds voted to remain in the eu there's no appetite for a scottish independent referendum uh their fate is intertwined with ours and it looks as though they want to keep it that way well so before i turn you over to john

what happened because a year happened? Because a year ago, almost exactly a year ago, you know, end of June, when the Brexit referendum was made, and Britain was leaving the EU, it was considered just axiomatic, like, at least from

where I was reading, completely a done deal, Scotland's going to have another vote. This one might actually result in Scottish independence. One of the reasons not to vote for Brexit was because it was going to trigger Scottish independence. And now it seems like that just fizzled away. I mean, was there anything, you attribute that to anything, or is it just that people

always think they know exactly what's going on and they don't really know what's going on? I think it's a combination of things. I think one of the reasons there's less appetite for independence in Scotland now than there was three years ago is that the Scottish economy is in a much more parlous state than it was because of the declining value of oil revenues. So people who were in favor of Scottish independence fantasized that with their bounty of North Sea oil, they could perfectly well survive without any largesse from London. But given the plummeting price of oil since then, I think they've woken up and realized that outside the Union, outside the United Kingdom, they would effectively be a beggar nation.

And if they decided to leave the United Kingdom and the remainder of the United Kingdom left the EU, it's far from clear that Scotland would automatically remain a member of the European Union rather than have to petition to join. And if it had to petition to join, which it almost certainly would, because I don't think the European Union wants to create a precedent which the Basque, which separatists in Spain could benefit from in the same way. I think if Scotland had to petition the EU to rejoin, it would only be able to rejoin on very onerous terms. And so I think the Scottish people have realized that for better or worse, they're better off staying in the union. It's amazing how oil production in North Dakota can affect the local politics in Scotland. And I fully expect North Dakota to have its own separatist movement within 10 years. John, in arizona where people are still part of the union um what

would you like to ask toby uh well uh being the typical ugly american this election obviously is only uh related to american politics that's how we tend to view things here and and the big international news of course you had this hideous attack in Manchester, followed by the awful attack in London. Did that, what kind of an effect do you think that had? And again, you know, you have all these different miniature elections going on. It's not like everybody turned out to vote for Jeremy or for Theresa May. How did those effects, what were those effects on the election? And also we had Donald Trump bashing the mayor of London.

We know London just pummeled the Conservatives yesterday. What kind of an impact do you think that had on the election? It seemed like both major candidates didn't really talk about it a whole lot or offer any pat solutions, at least. Yes, I mean, I think it's very hard to determine what effect, if any, the terrorist attacks had on the outcome of the European Union last year, in which a British Labour MP was killed by a kind of crazy right-wing loon. And everyone thought that would have a major impact on the outcome of the independence referendum, and it didn't. I mean, I think one of the reasons it doesn't look like it did have a big impact is that on the one hand, you would have thought that terrorist attacks on the British mainland, mass casualty attacks, of which there had been none before the attack in Manchester since 2005. So it was the first one since 2005, very quickly followed by another. I think one of the reasons it didn't have much impact is because

even though you'd think people would feel safer with a conservative prime minister who had made security and fighting terrorism, you know, one of the platforms she was standing on in order to point up the weaknesses of Jeremy Corbyn on those issues. I mean, at one point, he's in favor of unilateral nuclear disarmament, and one of his running mates, John McDonnell, has in the past called for the disarming of the police and the disbanding of MI5 and MI6, hardly reassuring in the current climate. But that didn't play as well for Theresa May as people were expecting,

partly because Corbyn was able to hammer her for having cut the number of police when she was Home Secretary, which she was for six years from 2010 to 2016. So I don't think that had, that those attacks had much impact on the outcome of election one way or the other. Oh, Trump, you asked about Trump. Yeah, I mean, it would certainly didn't help, I don't think, the conservative cause that Trump fired off a couple of intemperate tweets about Sadiq Khan, the Muslim mayor of London who was elected last year. He is extremely popular. He said exactly the right things when the attacks in Manchester and London took place

and I think generally produced a very thoughtful and measured response to those events. And to have Trump attacking him as a sort of apologist or as someone who hadn't woken up to the threat of Islamist terrorism, I think was very unhelpful. And because Sadiq Khan is a prominent member of the Labour Party, and because Trump is associated with Theresa May after that famous hand-holding incident in Washington, I think that didn't help. All right, well, we're going to follow you on Twitter.

We're going to read whatever you write on the Internet because we need to know what's going on there. And as we say to anybody who is in a country that just empowered socialism a little bit more, stay safe. We'll be praying for you, Toby. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

I wrote a piece in The Spectator yesterday on why I changed my mind about Corbyn and why he is, in fact, the new messiah. It's obviously laced with irony and sarcasm, but I would highly recommend it. I tweeted it out today, and you can find it in The Spectator. We will link to it for sure.

Great. Thanks, Toby. We'll talk to you later. Okay, it's good to talk to you. Thanks. When I think of the Messiah, I think of some socialist with black stockings and sandals and the rest of it. I was looking at a YouTube video of Corbyn's, I think it's shadow defense minister, Diane Abbott. And I don't mean Robert De Niro mean robert nero's yeah and she was

an absolute fool she was incapable of stringing together words into a coherent fashion and did not understand what was sort of required when you're when you're asked these questions it was a remarkable and then apparently she just she was retired yeah for health reasons so corbin i'm sure is trying to look around to find a new shadow defense member and if he wonders where he's going to find people to hire well you know he'd best get himself to america because we have zip recruiter and zip recruiters where you can find the best candidates for your job if you happen to be hiring and this being in america in the new age chances are you are now posting your job to one site is not enough to find the quality candidates with zip recruiter you can post your job to one site is not enough to find the quality candidates. With ZipRecruiter, you can post your job to 100-plus job sites with just one click.

Then their powerful technology efficiently matches the right people to your job better than anybody else can do. And that's why ZipRecruiter is different. Unlike other job sites, ZipRecruiter doesn't depend on candidates finding you. It finds them. In fact, over 80% of jobs posted on ZipRecruiter get a qualified candidate in just 24 hours. So don't juggle emails or calls to your office. Just screen, rate, and manage candidates all in one place with ZipRecruiter's

easy-to-use dashboard. Find out today why ZipRecruiter has been used by businesses of all sizes to find the most qualified job candidates with immediate results. And right now, Ricochet listeners can post jobs on ZipRecruiter for free. That's right, free.

Just go to ZipRecruiter.com slash free trial. That's ZipRecruiter.com slash free trial. One more time, to go for free, ZipRecruiter.com slash free trial. And our thanks to ZipRecruiter for sponsoring this, the Ricochet podcast. Now we need to talk about Washington and legalities and crimes and leaking and all the rest of it. And who better to go to than Andy McCarthy, our former assistant U.S. Attorney General for the Southern District of New York. Hi, it's Andy. Hey, Andy, welcome back to the podcast. All right, let's talk about what we saw in the last couple of days. Pressure was put on Comey, we're told,

but pressure is not obstruction, or is it? Is that what the Democrats want us to believe it really is? Well, pressure is not obstruction. Obstruction is a crime, which means it has what we call in the biz essential elements that have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. And, you know, pressure is not one of them. What the statute forbids is corruptly endeavoring to influence an investigation, even though you would not know it to listen to the commentary that we've heard for weeks. The word corruptly is actually the most important word in the statute.

It means that prosecutors have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person who was accused of obstruction acted with a public official is bribed, to lean on the FBI to dismiss an investigation, or the public official is concerned that the person the FBI is investigating has information that could inculpate the public official, so he leans on the FBI in order to stop the guy from dropping a dime on him what we have here instead is the president dealing with a subordinate uh about whether it's appropriate to go forward with an investigation in this case of General Flynn, who had been fired the previous day, the conversation that Director Comey talks about is on February 14th. And here it's important to underscore that the way our system works, everybody in the executive branch works for the president. The only constitutional official in the executive branch who has constitutional power is the president. All the power is vested in the president, and every other inferior officer in the executive branch exercises the president's power

at the president's pleasure. The reason that's important is throughout the United States, every single day, the FBI and U.S. attorneys offices decide to pull the plug on investigations and to decline prosecution in cases, not because those cases can't be proved, but because in weighing the equities, they decide that it's not appropriate to go forward. Our system is based on prosecutorial discretion. And it cannot be that the president, who is the superior officer to whom these inferior officers answer, it cannot be that the president has less authority to do that weighing of the equities than his subordinates do. So while some find it inappropriate, and I can understand the reason for that, that the president would intrude into the day-to-day business of law enforcement in order to try to direct the FBI in a particular investigation,

the fact is that the president has the authority to do it, and the weighing that he was doing was what prosecutors and agents do every single day. You can disagree with that. You can find it inappropriate, but it's obviously not corrupt. How could he have acted with an awareness that what he was doing was unlawful if it wasn't unlawful. Now, hi, Andrew. This is John Gabriel. The big news I was thinking out of the Comey hearing was not, it seemed like Comey was just basically inferring corruption or dark motives to pretty much everything Trump did.

Yet when Loretta Lynch asked him to call the situation with Hillary, insisting Comey call it a matter rather than an investigation, he said, oh, that's fine. That sounds good, which seems pretty damning to his credibility. And I don't know if you'd call it partisanship, but at least he did not hold her to the same standards that he is currently holding Trump. Did Loretta Lynch really expose herself here? Could that be followed up on at all? Well, I think she's politically exposed herself. I don't think there's anything criminal about that because as unsavory as we may find it, it is a matter. They told him to call it a matter.

Don't call it an investigation. It's not like they told her, told him to call it something that it wasn't. What they were trying to avoid was painting the obvious picture that, you know, the federal Bureau of investigation is in the investigation business. So I think what she did was inappropriate. It was another demonstration of politicization of law enforcement that went on throughout the Obama

years, including the years when Director Comey was director of the FBI from, I guess it was 2013 forward. I also think, John, that this really goes to, if I can have some indulgence to do a little mind reading of Comey, I think what gets under Comey's skin, and this is not so much a partisan thing as an FBI thing, is that Obama and Lynch could at any time have closed down the investigation of Hillary Clinton. Obama could have pardoned her.

Trump could at any time have ordered the Flynn investigation to be shut down, or he could pardon Flynn. And I think what bothers Comey is this political leadership has the authority to do these things that they want done, but they don't want to take the political weight for it. What they prefer instead is to try to nudge the FBI to do the heavy lifting for them so that they can then portray the is when the FBI is really exploited in this way for political reasons. The Clinton campaign did not want the case against Hillary Clinton to go away because Obama made it go away. They wanted to portray it as the FBI looked at this really hard and cleared her. And I think that's what he objects to, and if it

is, I agree with him. Hey Andy, it's Rob Long. Thanks for joining us. I've got two questions. One about Comey. I don't know. I'm sure there's a nicer way for me to ask this question. But is he just a jerk?

I mean, I'm serious.'s a nicer way for me to ask this question. But is he just a jerk? I mean, I'm serious. This guy, what he did to Hillary Clinton, and I'm no fan of Hillary Clinton, seemed just way out of bounds. Either you're going to investigate her, either she did something, she didn't do something. But he went, he accused her of things just to the line of illegal, but really were – which is inappropriate for the investigator to do, in my opinion. Probably reacting to some kind of political pressure or overreacting or counterreacting to it. And then he sort of did the same thing with Trump. I mean Trump sort of says, hey, let this go. I'm not investigating you.

And then Comey says, says yeah you're not and then he sort of after answering that question now he's turning it into some kind of dark um a non-accusation accusation and he seems like the most i mean passive-aggressive is the word you'd use in a relationship but this guy manages to be to accuse you of a crime without actually standing for that and arresting you for a crime or am i just do i am i misunderstanding no you're i think you're really quite right about this there's a degree uh and i have to preface this by saying i've known comey for 30 years and i i like him and have always thought well of him whoops sorry well no Well, no, no, no. But he's not a jerk. That having been said,

there's a degree of holier-than-thou here that's disturbing in this sense. The rules are actually made for everyone, and Jim has kind of conducted things the last year plus as if there's one set of rules for him and another set for everybody else. And my point all along has been that if he had adhered to the rules, he would not have any problem and he'd be in his job today. the road are if you're the united states attorney or the fbi agent you keep your big mouth shut until you're ready to go into court with an indictment that where you formally accuse someone and they have a right and an opportunity to defend themselves we're not supposed to of all

the people in uh in government um one of the reasons that we want law enforcement to be as independent as it can be in the system which is not as absolutely independent as Comey suggests Comey suggests let the FBI and the Justice Department like a separate branch of government but the reason that we have independence in part is we want the law enforcement people to go about their business and we don't want to hear from them unless they're go about their business and we don't want to hear from them unless they're ready to do something formal we don't want them entering the political realm and we don't want them ruining people's reputation and convicting them in the court of public opinion not in a regular court so until you're ready to formally file charges the normal

rule is that you don't even acknowledge the existence of an investigation because if you do it once, you have to do it in every case. And you certainly don't talk about people who are under investigations, even if it becomes publicly known, as it often does, that there is an investigation ongoing. I mean, look, you start issuing subpoenas and calling people into the grand jury, the public, the press and the public are going to find out there's an investigation going on, but you still don't talk about the substance of it, who's under investigation, what charges and the like, unless and until you're ready to charge. And what Comey did in July of last year is basically say that Mrs. Clinton was not guilty of a crime, but spend 12 of the 14 minutes of his presentation absolutely slaying her in terms of the evidence against her, which was quite damning. So no matter what he did to her legally, he ruined her politically. And, you know, it caused him, because he departed from the rules in July,

it caused him, at least in his mind, to have to depart from them again in October and announced that he was reopening the investigation. And I'm afraid with Trump, the same thing has gone on here. I mean, basically on March 20th, he got up publicly and testified that there was an open investigation, a counterintelligence investigation of Russia, which was focused on the Trump campaign and whether there had been collusion with Russia's meddling in the investigation. And what I find really problematic about that is that the intelligence agencies had announced back in January that there was an ongoing investigation of Russia. So it seems to me that Comey's testimony in March was aimed at nothing more than announcing that the Trump campaign was under investigation. Now, in some circumstances, whether it has been any evidence, it's not.

Andy, let me ask you before Rob asks his last one when we get out. and in some circumstances where there doesn't seem to be any evidence. All right. Andy, let me ask you before Rob asks his last one when we get out. That New York Times story about the investigation of the Russia connections, did that have to do with some Russian bank server pinging the Trump organization and that led to the FISA, which led to the unmasking of Flynn? Am I thinking of the right investigation or was there something, was this different? Was it metaphoric? Yeah, you are James. I think the February 14 Times report that came up in the testimony yesterday was kind of an overarching thing, which talked about a variety of different investigations aimed at a variety of, I shouldn't say variety because

that makes it seem bigger, I think three or four Trump associates. And amid that, I think folded into that is exactly what you're talking about. Rob, you had one more before we let Andy get back to work? Yeah. Andy doesn't get back to work. What time it is, it's cocktail hour for Andy. Hey, so you mentioned intelligence service. I just want to shift gears a little because you're sort of an expert in that too.

Cocktail hour and intelligence? Well, I didn't say you were an intelligence. I said you were a devotee. So the latest Edward Snowden wannabe, nextward snowden attempt edward snowden is this woman named reality winner yeah reality name wrong but now we have to like that that's what all the all the millennials suddenly start getting jobs and becoming prominent we have to get used to all these weird names that their uh their 80s parents named them. So she put a USB memory stick into a secure computer. She prepared, she leaked classified data.

This is stuff she's confessed to. She worked for NSA as a contractor, just like Snow. How messed up is the NSA? How incompetent is it? Are these just one-offs we shouldn't be worried about? It seems to me that place, which I was always under the impression was sort of locked up tighter than a drum, is this sort of leak central. They have these sort of nitwit young people working there

um posting on facebook they want to burn down the white house and they have this security clearance they can they can access to all these documents they can do whatever they want i mean what on earth is going on again i say yeah this is deeply disturbing rob because um i looked this up after the stories about reality came out. There are 5.1 million people in the United States with security clearances. 5.1 million. What? That's crazy. It is crazy.

And I think a large part of it is the contractor problem that you hit on because it's not just that we're giving security clearances to people who aren't in the government. We've now contracted out the process of security clearance itself, the background investigation. So that's how you have this fantasticizing of the number of people who have access. And in intelligence, having a security clearance is not enough to get your grubby paws on the intelligence. You're also supposed to have a need to know. But what her situation makes obvious is there were no restrictions on her at all.

Apparently, having the security clearance that she had was enough to get her access to a location where she was able to get access to all sorts of stuff that she had nothing to do with. And what I worry about with the number of people that we have who have these clearances and i don't think this is peculiar to nsa i think we have a broad-based problem across the intelligence community what i worry about is we know about snow and manning and now reality winner how many do we not know about? It's just, it's really, it's very troubling and it's very troubling. Why would you, if you were a foreign intelligence service, cooperate with the United States? You know, we like to think that our national security experts, the people charged with national security, are the upright patriotic

sort, that if they're sitting in a cafe and hear somebody next to them saying, I'm going to destroy America, they will follow them outside into a dark alley pull a wire out of their heel and garrotte them on the spot instead what we have our kids saying totally i am so up down with that join my facebook page we're going to destroy america great i got your back bro yeah fantastic all right anybody else want to uh keep keep Andy from his appointed rounds or let's just whatever we are thinking we'll leave for the next time thank you Andy

thanks for dropping by to talk to you guys have a great weekend Rob I thought you were going to bring up the guy who walked out with a hard drive apparently somebody's got millions and millions of emails showing that the NSA has been eavesdropping on everybody. Because it never stops, apparently.

These guys are, you know, I'm hearing some straight motorboating sound behind you. Is that it, Ron? There is a helicopter above me. It's slightly alarming when you're in London and there's a helicopter, just kind of... But it's probably a news helicopter. I'm quite close to the House of Parliament. Sorry, I'm just showing. Yes, well, a lone man walking in circles in the park for the last five minutes, I think, would question exactly your mental state of mind. But we all know Ron is a... Rob, what is the matter with me?

I can't – I call you Peter Gabriel. I call him Ron. I'm sorry. I'm the one really not Rob who's losing his mind. Well, I'm sane, of course, as you know. Well, very good. Thank you. You helped me on that one.

I was getting around to SaneBox, which is, of course, the number one way in which you can keep your email from driving you daft, batty, bonkers, as they would say in Blighty. Let me ask you a question. How many emails do you, the listener, have in your inbox right now? You got, what, 100,000, 20,000? Your email is anything like mine. Well, like mine used to be. The answer is too many emails, period. But here's the thing.

Even though I know I wanted to do something about it until I found out and did SaneBox, I did not know how I could manage this stuff. You delete things you know you're not going to get to and you feel guilty about it because you didn't read them, but then there's just too many to go through one at a time. Then, of course, through Ricochet, I finally found the secret to inbox zero, frankly, which is a Zen-like concept that Rob Long himself has attained, and I have too. I took back my email sanity through SaneBox. I cannot recommend this enough.

SaneBox sorts through email and moves all the trivial stuff into a different folder, so the only messages in your inbox are the ones you actually really want to see. And aside from removing all the junk, putting that in a folder, so you can focus on the messages that matter, there's this thing called the black hole. Here's where we need the John Williams theme from the Disney movie. Move an email into that folder and you will never hear from that sender again. It's so rewarding. It's so delightful. It's just like making them vanish in a puff of smoke.

We all use SaneBox here at Ricochet and we've worked out a great deal for you, the listeners, to enjoy it, too. Visit SaneBox.com Ricochet today, and they'll throw in an extra $25 credit on top of the two-week free trial. You don't have to enter your credit card information unless you decide to buy, so there's really nothing to lose. Give it a shot. You'll love it. Check it out today and let me know if you love black hole and reaching inbox zero as much as we do. Again, that's S-A-N-E-B-O-X.com slash Ricochet. And thanks to SaneBox for sponsoring this, the Ricochet podcast. Rob, before we go,

when I was in Europe last year, I saw that Paris felt tired and on edge and a little bit shabby, and that London felt jubilant and ebullient. What's your impression of Europe 2017 drawn from, oh, what, two weeks spent there? Yeah, you know, felt jubilant and ebullient. What's your impression of Europe 2017, drawn from, oh, what, two weeks spent there?

Yeah, you know, what has my cab driver said? Of course, I, you know, don't have, you know, don't take taxis. I have a couple reports. One is, I think France has collected itself in a way that,

I'll give you this little anecdote. When I used to hang out in Paris a lot, there was nothing harder than getting a taxi. It was the hardest thing in the world. You were on hold forever. They never came. You could never hail one. It was incredibly difficult.

And then along came Uber. And, of course, the French hate Uber because Uber's efficient, and it's an app, and you get to do it, and it's like there's no regulation, and Uber's everything the French don't want. But they couldn't get rid of Uber. So what they did to compete with Uber was

they made their taxis, the Paris taxis anyway, much, much better. There's now apps for a Paris taxi, and the Paris taxis are actually better than Uber. They have the same app. They come get you just like they do with Uber. They basically, they got better.

They responded to the competition. And it's sort of a, and I instructed some French friends of mine, like I'm saying, so obviously, as you understand, the market works, right? Competition works. And they're sort of like, well, no, it goes nuts, because they have all these reasons. But at the end of the day, even they knew, you could see it in their eyes, that Uber

and competition had made Paris a more livable city, a more efficient city, and had employed more people. People like taxis, and they want to be able to get one. And if you give more taxis, you make it convenient, you'll employ more people. That's what progress is.

So that is the good news. London, I haven't been here long enough really to know. It's also been sort of topsy-turvy because of the election, so it's hard to know. I think it's fair to say no one here is a fan of Donald Trump, even the conservatives, the very few conservatives I know in France, which I think there's only two of them, and the conservatives I know in London. But I think that's only two of them, and the conservatives I know in London. But I think that's actually irrelevant. I think that we're seeing one of the good things about Trump is that we're seeing Europe step up and start taking care of itself and its own leadership. So that would be my thumbnail report, an anecdote from France that I think is extremely, extremely cheering, and then just political tumult in the UK, which I think maybe, you know,

Toby's a smart guy. He's been looking at British politics for a long, long, long, long time. If he tells me that this is not a Rorschach election or not an election where you can draw big conclusions, I'll take him at his word. It kind of seems that way here, too. Well, there you have it, folks, the recollections and opinions of a rhino globalist of the first water. But, you know, we are all going to be globalists one way or the other. It's hard to, you know, as I was mentioning to Toby, the way that American and North Dakota oil production affects the politics of Scotland is fascinating. There was a

story the other day on the BBC that I was listening to about Qatar, or however you want to pronounce it. You know what the population is of that small little place? About 2.5 to 2.6 million? You know what the population of guest workers is in Qatar?

It's about 1.6 million 60 percent of the population of that small little place is from someplace else they're not a citizen and they're sending their money home the the announcer said that 30 percent of the economy of nepal depends on remittances which is extraordinary so here you have nepal's economy being cratered perhaps in the future because of something that was done over on this side over there and god the interconnectedness of this planet just astonishes you and anybody who thinks that we can walk around with a bolt cutter and sever it and be on our own is is highly mistaken and having made that inflammatory and and really crude statement crude statement for the comment sections to deal with and trash, I'll tell you this much. We've been brought to you by Away Travel, Zip Recruiter, and SaneBox, and you can support us by supporting them and vice versa.

Go to the Ricochet store, why don't you, and buy some swag. I know that Rob has sent us a picture of himself in the park podcasting, and he's got a Ricochet t-shirt on. He's got a Ricochet cap on. He's got a Ricochet mug on, he's got a Ricochet mug on, and he's got Ricochet pants. And if you don't know what Ricochet pants are, we'll go off to the gift store right away. And please, if you would, leave a review on

iTunes. The reviews allow new listeners to find us, helps surface the show, as I like to say, using those hideous jargons. And please, remember, there's that podcast listener tier. $2.50 a month. By the way, when you go to Ricochet, and you will, pay attention to that special little sign there that talks about the special live taping of Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson on Sunday, July 23rd at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley. It's going to be a great show.

Pat Sajak will be interviewing Peter about interviewing Peter and about interviewing things. Well, tickets are free for Ricochet members, and we'll be hosting a special meetup as well. Reagan and Thatcher members, special section of seats reserved for you. Details on the site. And you are going to that site right now to join. Thank you, Rob. Thank you, John.

And we'll see everybody at the comments at Ricochet 3.0. Thanks, guys. Thanks, Rick. Bye. Bye. Bye. Thanks guys. Thanks. We call. I saw a werewolf with a Chinese menu in his hand Walking through the streets of Soho in the rain He was looking for the place called Leehole Forks Gonna get a big dish of beef chow mein

Ah-hoo, werewolves of London Ah-hoo, where was London? Ah-hoo. Ah-hoo, where was London? Ah-hoo. You hear them howling around your kitchen door. You better not let them in. We'll be right back. The Werewolves of London. Ah-hoo! Ah-hoo! The Werewolves of London.

Ah-hoo! Ricochet. Join the conversation. He's the hairy-handed gent who ran him up in Kent. Lately he's been overheard in Mayfair. You better stay away from him. He'll rip your lungs out, Jim. I'd like to meet his tailor.

Ah-hoo, werewolves of London. Ah-hoo. Ah-hoo. Ah-hoo, werewolves of London. Ah-hoo Werewolves of London Ah-hoo Well I saw Lon Chaney Walking with the Queen Doing the Werewolves of London

I saw Lon Chaney Juniper walking with the Queen Doing the Werewolves of London. I saw a werewolf drinking a pina colada at Trader Vic's. His hair was perfect. Ah-hoo!

Ah-hoo! Werewolves of London Drop the Ah-ooh Werewolves of London