The Ricochet Podcast - What Is Truth?

Episode Date: April 19, 2019

What time is it? Why it’s Mueller time, of course. With the release of the report, we go full Mueller on this week’s show as we enlist Law Talk’s John Yoo to help us with the legal angle, and Byron York (he’s got a podcast too) to guide us through the political ramifications. Also, the fire at Notre Dame and a mediation (really!) on Good Friday. Music from this week’s show: Somebody Lied by Ricky... Source

It's the Ricochet Podcast. I'm hearing noise. Okay, three, two, one. 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 with Rob Long and Peter Robinson. I'm James Lilacs, and today we talk to John Yoo about the legal implications of the Mueller-Barr situation and Byron York about the political situation. Let's have ourselves a podcast. It's the Ricochet Podcast, number 444. Wow, what a week. I was walking past the beautiful new stadium in downtown Minneapolis today, gentlemen, and, you know, there's this big glass wall which can be tilted and opened, which is very handy for a football stadium because if you're all completely contained and enclosed, it's very difficult to get the goalposts actually out of the stadium itself. And I think that that might be a great place to hold the next Democratic National Convention

since we've got an awful lot of goalposts moving going on today. Politico said, forget collusion. The real story is the disorder in the Trump campaign. So we've completely conveniently forgotten about the whole Russia Putin thing because now they've got new meat on the plate or not. Rob, Peter, welcome. What do you think? Go ahead, Peter.

I'm not – Oh, I see. I see. I see. I'm going first. It's your run. So what's very clear is that there just was no collusion. You can define collusion any way you want to,

and there just wasn't any. Lots of evidence that the Russians attempted to interfere in the campaign. The Russians have been doing that for decades. No evidence at all that Trump or his campaign colluded. Done. Now, it is important to note that that was the whole story for the last two years. Now the emphasis is on Trump.

Well, there seems to be two strands of the story developing today. One is that Trump obstructed justice. And the only reason Mueller didn't bring charges is because of Department of Justice guidelines saying you can't indict a sitting president. It would simply disrupt the constitutional order too much. But Mueller has the goods on him. He goes through 10 different instances in which Trump clearly attempted to interfere with the investigation. He obstructed justice.

He would have been indicted, but he wasn't. And Barr misled us all in his summary, in the summary of the report that he submitted to Congress. Trump's guilty. That's item one. Item two, and that's that's the Democrats shift. That's the Democrats. That's the left ish, most virulent side of the Democrats. That's what you're going to hear on MSNBC. Here's the never Trump argument. This is the argument that George Conway makes, for example, in The Washington Post.

George Conway is the husband of Kellyanne Conway. And that argument is, oh, who knows whether there are all kinds of difficult legal questions here about whether you can actually obstruct justice when you're when there's no justice to be done, when there's no underlying crime, there are questions about whether the president could have said to have obstructed justice in firing James Comey since that is clearly within his constitutional duties. In fact, quite a number of these law, concerned with protecting his own skin. And George Conway says he's a cancer on the presidency and he must be removed. Forget about the legal niceties. This report demonstrates such outrageous, ignorant, self-interested behavior that the man has to go. That's David French, our friend, said something similar in National Review today. Andrew Sullivan is saying the same thing using the C word, I believe, to describe somebody. It's now come down to surprise, surprise.

They don't like Trump, the man himself. We're holding him in particularly high regard. Got it. we got that we that's but i think i mean i think it's possible to agree i agree with conway up until the last point and i would challenge conway to find for me another president of the united states who did was not also driven in many ways and many times, not maybe not all the time, maybe not as intensely as Trump, by all of those things, a desire to save your skin, an outrage at the way you've been treated, and sort of a slightly erratic, I mean, all these things describe people in general.

I mean, the obstruction case, I mean mean the obstruction case is interesting because there's a reason why Mueller did not go forward with recommending prosecution or however you would do it with a sitting president for obstruction. And that's because it's really hard to prove that he knew that's what obstruction was and it's very easy to prove that he ran it and raved and people said no you can't do that it's obstruction he said okay and then you know string of curse words and that was that which there's no living sentient american who has not had that exact response to frustration frustrating things i have had that response when trying to load new software into my computer. I have had that response trying to connect things to my TV. As I recall, you had that response it was captured in a podcast once.

There was a fender bender on the island of Manhattan in which you were involved. You had something like that response. I did. I did. To me, the weird thing about all of this is that. None of this is a surprise, but we do have a strange precedent. And I actually know this because I was familiar and friends with longtime friends with some of these actors in this drama. During the Clinton administration, there was a special prosecutor appointed by the – the new secretary of the treasury to investigate during the SNL – to wrap up the SNL crisis, an Arkansas SNL that had ties to the Clintons. And the investigator who was appointed, I think it was a judge, was a Clinton enemy,

a political enemy of the Clintons from way back. And George Stephanopoulos, who is now the host of Good Morning America, called up a Treasury Department official to yell and scream and say, can't you do something? And that became a mini scandal, which involved some Senate investigations and some Senate committee meetings. And it was clear that making that – that actually there was like four federal crimes, four crimes of obstruction in that. When George Stephanopoulos thought about making that call, that was a crime. When he picked up the phone to call, that was a crime. When he made the call and connected, that was another crime.

And then in the actual statements, he made two – he sort of suggested two things that were crimes and obstruction. And the response was, oh, yeah, well, you know. It didn't happen. He was expressing frustration. He didn't happen. He was expressing frustration. He didn't really know he was suggesting obstruction. And that's that. We all kind of shrugged and moved on. And that's exactly what Mueller knows would have happened had any of these obstruction cases gone to anything like a trial. trial what we're expected to believe is that donald trump who was the stupidest man to ever

occupy the office knew in his heart that what he was doing and the intention of what he was doing was to obstruct justice and he didn't care simultaneously we are being asked to believe that hillary clinton the smartest person ever to run for president perhaps with the exception of barack obama was completely ignorant in destroying the server that was under a subpoena because just you know stuff maybe sort of kind of happened. That's the square I'm being asked to turn into a circle. And it's also important. This is in Barr's – Barr said this yesterday.

He says the special counsel's report – this strikes me as very important, so I actually copied it. As the special counsel's report acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show that the president was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by political opponents and fueled by illegal leaks. Close quote. Reasonable reaction. Nevertheless, Barr said, the White House fully cooperated with the special counsel's investigation, providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, telling senior aides to testify,

asserting zero privilege claims. So Donald Trump is furious. He suggests at several points to staff around him, can't we stop this? Isn't there something you can do? Do you have to testify? All of that is within the range of road rage and pretty justified road rage. Did he follow through? Did he insist? Did he firm up venting with an undoubted presidential command? Never. Not once. No. And if you could go to court with that, you could probably go to court and claim obstruction of justice if you wanted to. And you could probably find some arcane definition where this, as the commander in chief, that this is what this counts as.

But no jury in the world would convict. And then everyone who's – every legal authority – all the controlling legal authorities to use Gord's phrase would point to just kind of immediate dismissal because you can't prove that he knew what he was doing. And besides which, at no point after – I mean not 40 lawyers, 500 subpoenas and 50 investigators, whatever it was, right? At no point was anyone stonewalled. The stonewalling which took place, which we know took place in the Nixon administration. That was actual stonewalling. This is just a guy venting in the Oval Office in a very leaky Oval Office and being completely ineffectual. I mean what's important – I mean I say this as somebody who's not a fan. I mean this does not paint a good picture.

I know. I'm enjoying this. I find – I mean it is – The council is arguing for the defense here. Exactly. I'm all right. Yeah, and I don't – but I don't think he should be railroaded. I think he should be beaten at the ballot, at the box. He should have been beaten by one of the 755 Republicans running against him, and he wasn't, and he was elected by the people.

He's the president of the United States. In fact, in a way, that's what people always say on the left. People really hate him. He's not even legitimate. He lost the popular vote. This is now – we now know the most legitimate president ever elected. I mean his election has been investigated more thoroughly than any other president in the history of the republic. This guy is more legitimately president no i can't say that that's the fact

rob because you're not taking into account the number of people who are absolute devotees of hillary clinton who saw a russian inspired meme on facebook and had their opinions flip completely 180 degrees i mean that's what i was told today by some of my friends is that you know that's that's the extent that the election itself was influenced by russia because of memes and that people were just simply powerless in the force of gru uh yeah jinda jinda imagery yeah well um uh there's the other thing about the temperament where you know supposedly they said when he when he found out that he was going to be investigated he he said the f word i'm f F and the F'd in my administration. And people are taking that as a sign that he knew that he was guilty and would be found out.

Because all other presidents, upon being found out that they're going to be investigated by the government, are relieved and say, good, because now the truth shall come out. The torch of truth shall shine free. And Bill Clinton himself was probably relieved to find out that Ken Starr was on the case. You know, it's interesting, Peter. You said that they had zero claims of executive privilege. I'm waiting for the people on Twitter to say, well, you know, zero was something invented by Islamist algebra guys, and Trump with his Muslim ban wouldn't be able to say zero. He'd be allowed to say zero.

Yeah, I know. Well, no one likes zero. No, I know. Well, no one likes zero. No, I'm sorry, but no one likes zero of anything. I mean like when you break your phone and you lose contact outside the world. I mean you got zero calls. You got zero text. You got zero social media. Oh, okay.

You're with me on this, Rob? I am. Life without a phone means zero everything, right? But you're lost anyway. There are zero solutions. Speaking of zero, zero solutions to this problem, James. Well, yes, there are. And do you know what I'm even talking about here?

Because I get the sense that you're – how to put this? You're not guiding me on the path to where I want to go. You're just sort of strolling alongside, generally aware. It's obstruction of justice. It's obstruction of my segue. It's obstruction of segue. And I think we can get him for this. Well,

and you know what, then maybe, uh, next time I do this, uh, I'll, you'll give me more credit for my help. Oh boy.

I tell you. All right, folks, where are we going? This is the whole zero and the whole credit thing here. It's like this. Having zero of anything is hardly ever a good thing unless we're talking Zebit. Zebit, that's Z-E-B-I-T.

They will change your whole perspective on zero forever. How? Well, Zebit is a better credit option. Zebit provides a better credit option for those who need it, frankly. They allow you to buy what you need and pay over time interest-free. Those two words, interest-free. There's zero cost to join. With Zebit, there's no cost to join, no membership fees, no late fees, zero credit score needed. Zebit does not check your credit score and your Zebit account does not affect your credit score. Zebit's huge marketplace, they have everyday items at everyday

prices. They've got more than 50,000 products in their marketplace with brand names like Xbox, Sony, Apple, GoPro, Fitbit, from electronics to barbecues and furniture and more. Zebit has everything you need when you need it. Now, Zebit has a five-star rating on Trustpilot, and they were in the trust of more than a million customers who shop on Zebit. So why don't you sign up for Zebit today at Zebit.com slash Ricochet and get $2,500 credit to shop the Zebit marketplace at zero interest and zero cost to join. That's Z-E-B-I-T.com slash Ricochet for $2,500 of interest-free credit. Zebit dot com slash Ricochet.

And we welcome and thank Zebit for joining us here at the Ricochet podcast. And now we welcome back to the podcast our old friend John Yu, professor of law at Berkeley's Bolt Law School and a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution. He's also the co-host of both the Law Talk with Epstein and Yu and the newly minted Pacific Century podcasts, both of which, of course, are available right here on Ricochet. When he's not teaching or podcasting, Professor Yu may be found at the line at McDonald's drive-thru window waiting patiently for the McRib sandwich to be bestowed upon him.

John, welcome. And, of course, in this whole week of collusion and obstruction and the rest of it, does anybody ever get between you and a McRib, or do they just know better? Depends how many they have. The more they have, the faster I come after them. Oh, there you go. Okay. All right.

So I heard Brian Williams the other day say that, well, they said there's no collusion, but really that's not a legal term as if they haven't been using it over and over and over again. Is there a legal definition of collusion or for that matter of obstruction? No, no. Collusion is not a crime. Collusion, you can't find the word collusion in the U.S. code. What is illegal is conspiracy to violate a federal law. And the federal law would have been presumably breaking and entering into Hillary Clinton's email servers without authorization, although it sounds like a six-year-old kid could have done that since they weren't protected or secured in any way, and then taking that

information, particularly any classified information, and spreading it around. But there's no evidence of that. And mind you, if you look at the Mueller report, it doesn't say we looked for collusion. It said we looked for a conspiracy to violate the law, and they said we found no evidence. There's no evidence that that occurred at all. All right, John, Peter here on to obstruction. I'm quoting your piece in the where was it in the Post, Washington, Washington Post, Washington Post. Yeah, I always have trouble remembering that for good reason. But Mueller ominously refused to reach the same conclusion on presidential obstruction of justice on which he pointedly says the evidence does not exonerate Trump. All right.

Explain that to us. On one hand, Mueller did Trump a big favor by completely and definitively clearing him of any real crime, any substantive crime of conspiring, of espionage, whatever you want to call it. So Trump was innocent all along, but then Mueller really slammed him at the end because I actually think Mueller was setting all of this out so that somebody else could do something with it. And then of course the only other someone else that could do something about this would be Congress through impeachment. So you could say – because look at it this way. If you found, as it seems like Mueller found very early on, that nothing happened, that Trump hadn't done anything illegal, There was no conspiracy between the campaign and the Russians. Then why continue the investigation? Why not just stop after the month or two when it seems that Mueller figured out nothing was going on? Yet he continued because he thinks – it's clear I think here in the report – he thinks that a president could either have committed obstruction of justice even though the Justice Department's policy is that you can't prosecute a sitting president and that even if he couldn't do something about it, Congress could. And so in the very beginning of volume two – this is a 400-page report. It's in two volumes. The whole second volume is about obstruction. And he says, well, we decided to conduct a thorough factual investigation. Here's the interesting language.

Quote, in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available. Unquote. Why would you do that if you already decide you can't prosecute? It's so that someone – you can hand it off to somebody else. And I'm afraid, Peter, that someone else I think in Mueller's mind is the Congress under the impeachment power. Right. Okay. So at least two commentators whom I think you respect, I certainly respect them.

Andy McCarthy and Kim Strassel both had similar reactions. Andy McCarthy said – I believe Andy – I don't have it in front of you, but I believe Andy actually called Mueller's, called volume two, which deals with the possibility of obstruction. I believe Andy used the word outrageous. Mueller should either have said there is evidence enough to indict, even though we don't indict sitting presidents, there is evidence there, or he should have just dropped the matter completely. That is the correct way for prosecutors, and in this case, the special counsel is acting like a prosecutor, to conduct themselves. Kim Strassel said, and I've got this I have in front of me, this is Mr. Mueller's James Comey moment. Remember the press conference in which Comey berated Hillary Clinton

even as he didn't bring charges? That was a firing offense, and Mr. Mueller has engaged in the same practice, to which John Yoo responds. I think what I think both Andy and Kim might be missing is actually Mueller made a critical mistake, and this really hasn't come out in the commentary because you have to read through the whole damn 400 pages to find this discussion, but he made a critical mistake. And this really hasn't come out in the commentary because you have to read through the whole damn 400 pages to find this discussion. But he made a critical mistake in his wrestling with Trump and his lawyers, which caused the whole obstruction investigation to collapse. It's very interesting. When you prove obstruction, you can prove it with acts which don't on their face appear criminal. Because what's important – and this is true of every one of the ten – list of ten things that Mueller said could have been obstruction is that the president needed to have acted with a quote-unquote corrupt intent. So for example, Trump could have fired Comey because he thought Comey was a terrible FBI director. He could have fired Comey and given no reason at all. was when he fired Comey, right? Right. Good luck.

Yeah, but this is where I think Giuliani – I can't believe I'm saying this, but I think Giuliani got the better of them because Mueller says – he sets out. You know what? We never got a chance to interview Trump. We decided – this is what his report says. We actually decided we could have gone to a grand jury, gotten a subpoena, and forced them to testify under oath just like Bill Clinton. And we decided not to. So instead we took written answers. This is amazing. Trump's lawyers got Mueller to agree to accept written answers and excluded any questioning about obstruction at all. And that was – the mistake that you mentioned was that Mueller put up with that, that he accepted that.

Yeah, that he accepted that. And so it's actually not possible for Mueller to have reached any decision on obstruction on any of those ten charges unless he actually interviewed Trump. And so Barr – I think Barr is getting a bad deal because if you look at what Barr did, people are calling for his resignation, this and that. If you look at what Barr actually did, he is just saying, I accept Mueller's recommendation. Mueller said, I'm not going to prosecute on obstruction. And Barr is just saying, I agree. I'm not overruling the prosecutor on this one. If you look at their support, Mueller cannot make out – he is incapable for him to make out a case of obstruction because he doesn't know what's in Trump's mind.

I bet Trump doesn't even know what is in Trump's mind. There are 350 million of us in this country and not one can answer that my idea of hell is having to figure out what's in trump's mind from one minute to the next hey john so um is i mean that you mentioned giuliani uh he put a lot of mobsters behind bars and one of the things that when when mobsters get indicted they always throw in like a lot of cases of obstruction right yeah um because they throw those in because they're easy to prove or they're hard to prove or they are um a little icing on the cake a little more uh leverage against the the you know against the mob boss so i guess i'm trying to say actually it's the someone you left out attention it sometimes is only when you can prove i mean the obstruction is actually very easy to

prove compared to some of the other things you might go after mob boss for that that should be the lesson from this is you know trump if you actually didn't do anything why did you do all these things that look like obstruction it makes like like no sense. Well, John, doesn't it, we're going to beat the hell out of everyone. We're going to kill you. Or we're going to burn their paper, these papers, or we're going to tamper and bribe. So none of the facts about obstruction in this volume two are anything like that. They're all things which the president could plausibly have done for completely legal reasons. There's no bribery.

There's no tampering. There's no – that's why it all depends on what Trump's purpose was when he was doing all these things like firing Comey or saying fire Mueller himself, right? Or, yeah, put – or get Jeff Sessions to shut down the investigation. So just so so, John, pretend for a minute that you're his defense attorney. You're Trump. And you've got to volunteer to disbar myself. OK, just for a minute, pretend you are. Isn't it true or would it be true that as you're sitting in your glamorous conference room with all of your associates there spitballing and blue-skying a defense, isn't it true you will eventually come down to this defense if you have to, obstruction of justice, which is that Trump is an erratic, emotionally unstable, inconsistent person, and to suggest that he had any clear or continuous motive is ludicrous.

You're actually going to use Trump's great weaknesses and his political, I think, vulnerabilities as Rob Rob look that the I'm too stupid to commit a crime may work on tv but that does not work in the court in the courtroom oh you're kidding come on you should try it next time you're pulled over for speeding down the wait you don't like that you don't think it's a really work right like you you you got it you should there's great you know you there's great material for TV shows and all these federal – John, what I'm saying is you're telling me – The dumb things criminals do every day. Like the criminals who break into a jean store, steal jeans, and then wear the jeans so low off their butts that they trip themselves and are waiting there on the ground for the police to arrest them. Those people always say, we're so incompetent and stupid, we could never really have wanted

to violate the law because what idiot would have done it this way? No, no, no. I'm saying, John, you're telling me that his defense is going to – or the prosecution is assuming, this hypothetical, is going to be what his state of mind was, what was inside his mind, what's his intent. If I'm his defense attorney, I'm going to say, what's his – what's his what's the state of mind hey friends it's scrambled eggs up there he's nuts so so in a sense you would say to beat the obstruction charge you would say but please trigger the 25th amendment or impeachment to remove an incapable president

that's a separate issue that'd be a separate action john so actually so this is actually bar did say something like this if you remember so bar had this press conference yesterday before the report was released and he's and so people said how can you conclude that the president didn't have intent and so bar said look he's a you know tempestuous person he's very emotional and so when he heard about the independent counsel statute, independent counsel appointment, Mueller was being appointed, he exploded and saw that this was going to ruin his presidency.

He said, there's a quote in the report, I don't know if you mentioned it on the show, about he said, I'm ruined. I'm effed. That's probably the family version of what he really said, actually. And so Barr actually provides – takes the defense that you're putting up there, Rob. And he said he was just reacting emotionally.

He didn't really have any mental state to try to defeat obstruction. Some of the acts though, they're interesting. They come close to the line if you thought a president could be indicted, which I don't think he could be. But if you did, you know where he says to different people, why don't you write an email that says something different than what actually occurred? Or why don't – one suspicious one is he said to – I mean if you look at there's 10 things, one of them – just one of them that leapt to mind was, oh, he calls Corey Lewandowski, his campaign manager, whom he fired. And he calls him to come into the office.

No one's in the office. I want you to talk to Jeff Sessions personally and have him shut down the investigation, which amazingly Lewandowski, the first time I've ever read of him showing good judgment ever. He decided to pretend he didn't hear that right or mcgann you know don mcgann come on in here fire muller right these are all the things he could have legitimate reasons for doing but it doesn't seem like it right i mean the president's detractors will say like rob was saying if you get inside the president's mind you would find like homer simpson a wind-up monkey and a fez banging cymbals together. That, I think, goes on up there 24-7. But the defenders of the president are making an argument that I don't think is wise, and that is,

this was an illegitimate investigation to begin with, predicated on false information. It was a hit job, etc., etc., that the investigation itself was an injustice. Therefore, any obstruction of this injustice does not itself count as a possible crime. And I think that's probably not a wise argument to take. There's a bunch of – actually a very – I just don't think that's right because that would mean like, for example, that it's okay to commit perjury or lie to the FBI about – Or have a witness shot. I mean if a witness is giving false testimony against you and you have him shot, you can hear about it. But these are process crimes, right?

There's a bigger interest, and this is what Mueller's report goes on and on about, is there's this bigger interest of protecting the justice system and making sure police and the FBI and so on, and that's why a president has to be subject to these laws too. Hey, John, could I take a little attempt here to sum something up? OK, so here's the way it sounds to me. I've just heard you make a pretty skeptical of Trump argument. He did things that are pretty close to the line. And if we knew that the his motivation were to get in to to thwart the investigation then maybe that might have been obstruction if we buy the argument that a president is capable of

of obstructing justice even when he's only doing something that falls within his constitutionally mandated functions. That strikes me as a long list of contingencies. And when, of course, the burden of guilt is still such that you've got to prove beyond a doubt that this was his state. The other explanation is perfectly adequate. He is erratic. He was angry. He was justly angry. They spent two years, leaks, undermining his presidency, and that is a perfectly sufficient and plausible explanation for all of this behavior. followed through on any of it. You could argue perfectly plausibly he was just blowing off steam. The White House did cooperate. They did provide a million documents.

He never said to Don McGahn, okay, you won't fire him. You're fired. It was nothing like what Richard Nixon did to get rid of Archibald Cox. There's nothing here. There just isn't. I actually bring harmony to all of your positions and solve this for you with my Washington Post. This is not easy. This is not easy. This is like adding the pickle and the sauce to the fake pork meat to produce the perfect McRib.

Wow. Wow. This better be good, John. No, but this is – so the piece I wrote for the Post argues that all of this shows that we have been – and I'm glad you mentioned Watergate, Peter. We have been on a 40-year mistaken experiment after Watergate, which was the idea, what do you do about a president who misbehaves, maybe even goes so far as to abuse the powers of his office or might even be unfit for office? So what did we do after Watergate? We co-opted the criminal justice system. We used prosecutors like Mueller and these teams, and it's used at two years investigation, warrants, subpoenas. And what

do you get at the end? Nothing. You can't. What Mueller kind of admits at the end, and I think Barb said clearly, is you really can't indict a sitting president. It doesn't matter if he obstructed justice or not. And look at this here. Mueller can't force the president to testify because Mueller works for Trump. He works for the president. When you read through the report, you come away thinking no matter what Trump did, Mueller really couldn't nail him down and prosecute him because ultimately Mueller is a prosecutor. He works for the party. So let me ask you this, John. You have to use impeachment.

That's what the Constitution sets out as the only way to constrain a misbehaving, abusive, or unfit president is you have to impeach him. And we've been doing this 40-year experiment, which has really distorted politics, and it's distorted the legal system too because Congress doesn't want to perform its constitutional duty. So, John, last question. I just need to know. If you were a prosecutor and you had a reasonable set of – you had volume two of the Mueller report and we were talking about Donald J. Trump, private citizen, and not Donald J. Trump, president, would you indict? Would you bring this to court? Well, so a lot of the things that he's being accused of for obstruction are things only a president could do, like firing people. This is why it's so unique. He didn't do anything that you see in mob cases or drug cartel cases, the things you were mentioning, Rob. Yeah, the fun stuff. Tampering.

Yeah, the stuff that makes for a good TV show. Or like – what was the movie I was watching? That one with Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson. It would be perfect if Trump could play Nicholson. You can't handle the truth. I want the truth. I was just thinking about that when I was watching A Few Good Men. That's what it was.

I guess in Me Too, I don't – world now. Can you even call a film A Few Good Men anymore? I don't know. Anyway, so that's sort of – that's the kind of stuff you see with – Jack Nicholson covers up this crime. And then so he like changes. He doctors the books and he pressures witnesses, and he actually campers with evidence. Trump, as far as I can tell, did not do any of that. So this is why this is a unique case, because they're all exercises of kind of a presidential

power. That's why I don't think actually, this is where I jumped ship on the end of what Peter said, I don't think a president can be indicted for these things because he's using the constitutional powers of his office. He didn't take any bribes. He didn't destroy any evidence. He didn't coerce anybody to – now, is it – but here's what's interesting. Is it obstruction for the president to say, well, maybe I'll pardon someone? Only the president can pardon someone, and the president doesn't have any reason, have to have any reason to pardon anybody.

He can do it for anybody. I don't think that Congress can criminalize the president when he chooses to pardon someone or not. So that's why I say the only punishment that works is impeachment. Well, and that's what we're going to take up in our next segment about the political aspects of that. John, thank you. Everybody else, just be warned.

If you see him at McDonald's, do not get between him and his mechanically separated Preston's. Do not obstruct that. John, that – Don't obstruct my access to McRibs. I do want to – Crime against a man and good taste. John, it does occur to me as we say goodbye to you that that your example of the stupid defense people who break into a clothing store wear jeans so low down their backsides that they trip

that would really only have occurred to somebody from philadelphia oh oh why philadelphia those happen on their life peter don't underestimate how many stupid people live in the United States of America. All over? Thanks, John. These cases happen all over. They're great. I love reading them. Well, that will be your next book, Funny Criminal Stories.

John Hughes, lighter side of the law. Thanks, John. We'll talk to you later. Thank you, John. Of course, he was referring to a few good men, which has that great scene where you know, where Jack Nicholson barks out at Tom Cruise and everybody cheers. You know, you want the truth. You can't handle the truth. You can't handle the truth.

The fact of it is most of us can't handle our teeth either. I mean, we can touch them, but when it comes to taking care of them, it's a whole different situation. I mean, one of the most important things you can do for your health every day is to brush your teeth, but we don't do it properly. You can't handle the tooth. Quip will help you handle your tooth. All of them, as a matter of fact, all 32 or however many happen to have it. It's a better electric toothbrush. It's created by dentists and designers. It looks cool, too. It was designed to make brushing your teeth simpler, more affordable, and frankly, even enjoyable. I mean, here's why I love Quip, and you will, too. It's got sensitive sonic vibrations, which are gentle enough on your

sensitive gums. Most people brush too hard and grind it in there and some electric toothbrushes are too abrasive. It's like using a band saw. No. It's got a built-in two-minute timer that pulses every 30 seconds to tell you, hey, switch sides, go to the other quadrant, and it gives you a full, even clean everywhere.

You're sure of it because otherwise, you know, when the vibration stops, then it's time to rub it on your tongue and you're done. 90% of us don't brush for the full two minutes, so we don't clean evenly. So that's why this is good. It also has a multi-use cover that mounts right to your mirror and unmounts to slide over your bristles for on-the-go brushing. It declutters your sink, your cabinet, and even makes traveling with an electric toothbrush

all the easier. Equip does not require a clunky charger, another thing you got to plug in. No, and it runs for like forever on one charge, three months actually. The brush heads, they're automatically delivered on the dentist-recommended schedule every three months for just five bucks. The price is great, and the fact they come to you automatically so you don't say, oh, I'm brushing with something that looks like it's been shining army boots for three years, perfect. You know that three out of four of us use bristles that are old, worn out, and ineffective? You won't have that problem with Quip. That's why it's one of the first electric toothbrushes accepted by the American Dental Association and has thousands of verified five-star reviews.

I've got my dental cleaning coming up in a few weeks here, and I know, as ever, that my dentist will say, there's no need for me to give you the little rote toothbrush that I always hand out to everybody else because he knows I use the best toothbrush possible. He knows I use a Quip. Backed by over 20,000 dental professionals, it starts at just $25. And if you go to getquip.com slash ricochet right now, you get your first refill pack for free with a Quip electric toothbrush. That's first refill pack free at getquip.com slash ricochet.

Getquip.com slash ricochet. And our thanks to Ricochet for sponsoring ourselves so Quip can sponsor us. Old Home Week here at the Ricochet Podcast continues with Byron York, chief political correspondent for the Washington Examiner and host of the hottest podcast on the Internet right now, The Byron York Show. This week it features a very timely interview with George Papadopoulos. You can follow Byron on Twitter at Byron York. Listen to this, Byron. We've got a clip for you. Play it.

Keith Smith. Breaking news. Another bombshell out of the White House. I believe this is the beginning of the end. I do too. It's really the beginning of the end. The beginning of the end. He may be feeling the walls closing in on him.

All the walls closing in on him. The walls closing in on him. Breaking news. A new bombshell. One astrologer says this means the beginning of the end for President Donald Trump. Two years of bleep. And it's led us to this. So politically, though, of course, the Democrats are going to let it go.

Elizabeth Warren today is saying we must impeach. It's got to be done. Is it true now that the only thing standing between the hard left and the resistance, the people who want Trump out, is Nancy Pelosi? Is she eventually going to be the one to blame for Trump having another uninterrupted two years in office? Well, Steny Hoyer certainly learned to keep his mouth shut about this. Came out and said impeachment wouldn't be worthwhile. And then, wham, got slapped big time by the left and retreated. So, you know, I think that they were, first of all, a lot of Democrats just had this impulse.

They're just dying to impeach the president. And they kept this impulse in check over the last couple of months as they feared the Mueller report would be a dud. Now, the Mueller report has a lot of details they can use to gen up a charge of obstruction of justice against the president. So now they're rethinking. And the ones who really want to do it still really want to do it. And Pelosi and Hoyer certainly have been very cautious about this.

If only for timing's sake. I mean, it would take a while to rev up an impeachment, and we would be deep in a presidential campaign. That has never, ever happened before. Remember, Clinton was impeached in 98, 99, after being re-elected in 96. And Nixon was not impeached, threatened with impeachment, resigned ahead of impeachment in 74, after being re-elected in 72. The idea you'd impeach a president in the middle of a reelection campaign, in which, by the way, every single member of the House is up for reelection too, is kind of mind-boggling.

And Byron, just remind us of the 1, 2, 3, 4 mechanics of impeachment. The House draws up articles of impeachment, the they must pass out of a committee by a majority judiciary committee and then they have to go they have to receive what kind of vote in the house to proceed to the senate it's a normal vote it's just a simple majority vote yeah so they could look they can impeach the president they could do that on whatever they can get 218 votes for right uh and then it goes to the Senate where it requires 67 votes for conviction and removal. Now there are 53 Republicans, so the idea that that would happen seems kind of crazy. But you can't, I mean, the House can impeach the president.

They've just got to get 218. Okay. And they've got, what, 240 now, something like that. And your feeling, we just had John Yoo on and John said, well, you know, this obstruction stuff, if you construe the law in a certain way, that is to say, if you rule out the argument, which John himself isn't willing to do, but if you rule out the argument that a president gets, that a president cannot be charged with obstruction when he's performing, when he engages in an activity that falls well within his constitutional duties.

That is, he fires the FBI director. If you rule that argument out and say, no, no, if his frame of mind is just right, if he's doing it for a specific reason to interfere with an invest, then that obstruction actually can be charged against the sitting president. In other words, how strong is the case? How strong is the actual case they have? Mueller didn't do it. So for the lawyers out there, I mean, there's a fascinating argument going on. Back in June of last year, remember, then-private citizen Bill Barr writes this memo to the

Justice Department explaining that Mueller's theory of confusion is all wrong, collusion. Yes. One more time. His theory of obstruction is all wrong. Yes. And it's based on something called U.S. Code 1512C2. You can look it up. And made what seemed to be a pretty convincing case.

And sure enough, Mueller bases his whole thing, his obstruction case, on 1512c2. There would be a big legal argument about that, but you're talking about the law. We're talking about politics and impeachment. They can certainly impeach him for obstruction if they want. They don't have to go to a grand jury and get an indictment. They can just do it. So whatever they can get, you know, whatever they can get 218 votes for, they can do. Some of the early impeachment articles, and, you know, we've had impeachment articles filed by Democrats since 2017 when Trump

first entered office. I mean, they would propose to impeach him for, like, dividing the nation and things like that. So this would be a lot more substantive than that, probably. Hey, Byron, it's Rob Long. I've got a couple questions. One, it seems like the Democrats have four strategies, right? One is Mueller report comes out, and it walks the line so well and gets so close to it that impeachment seems like a good thing to do, even though you're bound to fail in the House. The second thing is we just keep relitigating the ugly stuff in the 10 moments of obstruction

short of impeachment so that we make him look kind of – we bloody him up a little bit, put some stink on him, more stink on him when you head into the reelect next year. The third strategy, I guess, is to like cross your fingers and hope the Southern District comes in with something. And then the fourth one is I think probably the most fruitful for them is to get his tax returns, change the subject. It's not about collusion. It's not about collusion. It's not about obstruction. It's about his complicated, potentially illegal tax returns for the past 20 X number of years and run on that. That's

the latter seems to be Nancy Pelosi strategy. How how successful is she going to be at hurting all those cats that now are supposed to report to her in the House? I think that she's going to be fairly successful on the idea of impeachment, because this may age badly, as they say on Twitter. But I think the Mueller report will look less and less strong as we begin to kind of digest it and understand what's in it. There's a lot of very iffy stuff, like I was discussing before. It is the result of a two-year non-obstructed investigation into something that did not happen.

So that's politically a pretty good case for the president. So can I ask you just a thought experiment? I mean, this is a completely unfair thing, but if for the past two years, if instead of obsessing constantly and wish-casting for the Mueller report, if instead of waiting for Hale-Bopp, the cult in Southern California waiting for Hale-Bopp, if instead of doing that, right, instead of doing that, the Democrats had just focused on winning not only the House, but the Senate. I mean, don't you think that would have been a better use of their time? I don't know. I mean, they may win with this. I mean, I think, you know, your option two, which is just to dirty Trump up as much as you can and use this against him to the degree that it's useful in each particular state or congressional district. I think that's probably what they're going to do. Obviously, the tax

returns has been kind of a holy grail for them for a long time, but there is going to be a fight about this. It's the very definition of a fishing expedition. And, has a case against them. The letter that Richard Neal, the chairman of the Ways and Needs Committee, wrote requesting the tax returns was actually funny because he has to have a legislative purpose in doing this. So with a straight face, he argues that they must have the president's tax returns so that they can make sure the IRS audit system is working properly. I mean, don't you – isn't that going to be Trump's strategy to say they came after me for this, for the Russian thing. It didn't happen. They came after me for obstruction.

It didn't happen. They're going for everything now. They want everything. They came after me for paying off my girlfriend. That didn't happen. They paid – they They came after me for paying off my girlfriend. That didn't happen. They paid – they've gone after me. Now they're going on a fishing expedition for my tax returns. I mean I think he could win on that. I mean he has a legitimate case that he is in fact being harassed. Above and beyond perhaps the usual. of what Bill Barr did was to set the impression of the Mueller report early before anybody had a chance to read it,

saying there was no collusion. And I think that they will benefit from that because people will think Trump-Russia didn't happen. Well, we will see. And that seems to comport with what I think, so I think you're quite brilliant. Thank you, Byron.

And more of that brilliance can be heard in the podcast, of course, here on Ricochet. We advise you to listen to it after you've heard this one and listen to it every week, and we'll have you on again, and thank you so much, Byron York, for joining us today. Thanks, Byron. Rob, Peter, I don't know about you guys, but

when you think about this and what the country has been through for the last couple of years, are you sleeping easier? That's just an underhanded pitch to Rob. I'm not even going to go for it. You're not even going to help me on this one. It's only fun if I do it. It's not fun if you do it with me. That's because you want to be a disruptor, don't you?

Yeah, I need to disrupt. I would like to disrupt the whole meditation business. Well, there's nothing to do. Your sleep is not going to be disrupted if you find yourself. You're just really flailing around. I am searching right now to try to find out. I'm scrolling down. It's not sheets if it's not calming meditations.

No, it's something else. Oh, yes, and I have a unique application for that. For what? Weighted blankets? Yes. How do you have an application for a weighted blanket unless this is the future where you push a button and it's weighted? No, no, no. I don't mean a phone app.

I mean like a use for it. Oh, you do? Well, we'll get to that. When you get to that part last – When we get to the testimonial, right. Folks, what I'm talking about when I say weighted blanket, you probably have heard of these. You may have seen commercials. You may know somebody who has one. But if you don't, you would think, why would I want a blanket that is weighty? Well, let me tell you this. If you suffer through a sleepless night, there's no need for that. You can try the

Calming Comfort by Sharper Image. It's a luxurious weighted blanket that helps you relax. You can fall asleep and stay asleep naturally. Calming Comfort is designed with high-density comfort film to provide exactly the right amount of weight. They've studied this, and it helps relax your body. It mimics the soothing feeling of being hugged, less stress, and more restful night's sleep. You know, and I come from a Lutheran culture that doesn't necessarily want to be hugged, so it's nice to be hugged by something that's inanimate. It's made with super soft velveteen material, and it's designed to promote a sense of calmness and relaxation for more restful sleep. Wake up feeling refreshed. When you're under the blanket, though, sleeping,

you experience that great feeling of being hugged and cuddled and swaddled, which is, frankly, let's admit it, just as soothing for adults as it is for children. Calming comfort applies an even amount of pressure all over your body to help the production of serotonin and melatonin, stimulating deep touch pressure stimulation. So this is where Rob tells us that he has a unique application. So if you fold it into sort of a narrower strip and then you put it on the – you lie down and you put it on the small of your back, it's just enough weight. If you have – every now and then you've got a little lower back trouble as I do. It's just enough weight to kind of stretch you out a little bit, just enough weight to kind of like give you a little relief, and then you stand up, you feel great. So there's lots of, lots of ways to use this marvelous invention. So the initial application, use it like a blanket, or you can be like Rob Long

and experiment with various parts of your body and see where it has the therapeutic value. Why not? But you're not going to be able to do this unless you order one. Now, the Calm and Comfort Weighted Blanket comes with a 90-day anxiety-free, stress-free, best night's sleep your life guarantee from Sharper Image. And right now, just for our listeners, you can go to CalmingComfortBlanket.com. You're going to use a promo code. What do you think it is? You're correct.

Ricochet at checkout and receive 15% off the displayed price. Again, that's CalmingComfortBlanket.com. Promo code Ricochet. You really can't put a price on a great night's sleep. Go online now to calmingcomfortblanket.com and use the promo code RICOSHET for your special discount today. And our thanks to Calming Comfort Weighted Blanket for sponsoring this, the Ricochet podcast. Well, gentlemen, of course, the story last week was the burning of the Great Cathedral in Paris. And what it was mortifying that it was hardening because, frankly, I had expected it was all going to thunder down into a pile of rubble.

And it didn't. And the interior damage was much less than we had feared. One of the New York Times reporters, I believe, said that the body of Christ was removed from the conflagration, and I think they were talking about a statue. Now that the spire is gone, the spire which was restored in the 19th century by Viollet-le-Duc, there's going to be – and my heart sank when I saw this – an international competition to design this. And I thought of all the – the French ought to be able to pull this off on their own. And the French spirit ought to be, this is our – yes, this belongs to Western civilization and Christianism and all this. This is our church in Paris. We can do this. Our culture is strong enough to do this.

But this pan-European transnational idea says that everybody has to come together. And apparently some guy in Berlin has got to design a glass phallus that's going to go on the top of it and it'll be appropriately modern what do you think well i have to say that um this is not new the french have appalling taste in this stuff they are absolutely appalling um most of their great you monuments are just shockingly awful and the truth is that La Défense is terrible, I think the

Beauborgue, the Pompidou Center is terrible Pompidou stinks, it's awful and I don't even like the the I.M.P. Pyramid exactly, I'm so happy you had the – I don't even mind that. I don't mind that.

I'm thinking – You squish again. All right. No, I just don't – it's the Bibliothèque Nationale, which is terrible. Oh, right. Yeah. So like the I.M.P. thing, you could just kind of erase the pyramid as you look at it, and the underground stuff is actually good because they organize the museum better. No, I don't – like it will be that.

But in a way, the argument of French friends of mine have made when they agree that these are terrible additions to Paris is that people said the same thing about the Eiffel Tower, which is also a kind of a weird thing. It has no reason to be and it was hyper-modern at the time in a bad way. And eventually, because it's Paris, everything kind of just becomes human again and becomes just another symbol of the endurance of Paris. And when something's put into Paris, it kind of learns to behave in a way and becomes even more French than, you know. That is because it is drawing on a rich and large and spread out legacy of consistent architecture. You cannot ruin the great Paris with Pompidou.

You cannot ruin it with La Défense. But the more La Défense and Pompidou's you have at the expense of the old human-scaled architecture, then the balance starts to shift. And when you have something as prominent as Notre Dame having a ridiculous modern extrusion at the top of it, that's going to be different than just plopping some piece of sub-rate post-modernism in a baguio somewhere. And you're right about the Eiffel Tower. People did think that, but people were – I wouldn't say that they were necessarily wrong

because it was quite startling. And the fact that it turned out to be a graceful, beautiful, iconic symbol of the city doesn't necessarily mean that everybody else who points out that's an ugly piece of junk is wrong. It's a famous Jules Verne quote. When somebody asked him what's his favorite restaurant in Paris, he said it's the restaurant on the Eiffel Tower because it's the one place I know I can eat and look out the window and not see the Eiffel Tower. An old joke they make about every single ugly tall building. I know, and it's true. It's true. They make it about the John Hancock Center in Chicago.

I moved there because I didn't have to see the John Hancock Center. But, I mean, when people say that Notre Dame was built over the centuries and reflects various different epoch interpretations, that's true, but it has an architectural consistency. It is Gothic. And even though the Gothicism is – It's also very specifically Christian. Yes.

And now that – I thought to myself, where does the passed a law stating that all churches built before that date were now the property of the French government. So it turns out that for more than a century now, Notre Dame has indeed belonged to the French government. overwhelmingly Catholic, meaning the culture was divided between believers and hypocrites who at least pretended to believe or gave lip service to the wider culture and the morality of the wider culture. And now that is just not the case. And so how long can it be before we see entries in the competition? Some are going to have the Islamic crescent on top of the spire instead of a cross. Some are going to be – they're going to be aggressively – I don't know how you do this, but atheist or – this could turn into a mess.

And my prediction is that it will. That's French history over the last quarter century. Yeah. France is now aggressively secular. Yes. And so what will be interesting is that they're aggressively secular before Notre Dame burned down. It may awaken in them some feeling like, well, let's make this – they're also very nationalistic. So this will be interesting to watch it unfold my guess is that it will be um

uh probably some kind of french person or somebody who speaks fluent french some architect even if he's in berlin will speak french and um it'll be a little spire that's a some kind of you know everybody will hate it but it'll be fine um but france itself has been moving france itself has been moving from being a Catholic nation to being a secular nation to being an actively atheistic nation, which is really where it is now. So it is up for grabs. Although I'm told there's a movement among young people. There is some kind of Catholic revival going on among young people. And also this is – I don't know much about this, but I'm told by people who do watch the scene in France, keep your eye on the Archbishop of Paris, Archbishop Opetit. He's a very interesting guy in that he's a late vocation to the priesthood. He was a medical – he was a practicing medical doctor, well-recognized in his field, medical publications, and then he became a priest.

He's only been Archbishop of Paris for, I think, about a year and a half now. I'm told he's a fascinating figure. And of course, he's going to be playing a central role in all of this. Just watch him. Keep your eye on him, I'd say. Keep your eye on the Archbishop of Paris is probably the most Peter Robinson thing any Peter Robinson has ever said, especially on Good Friday. I think that goes without saying, though. Those of us who usually do that as a course of action, Peter, are insulted by your suggestion. But, I mean, you're right. I mean, it becomes increasingly secular and atheistic.

But you will always have people who want something more transcendent. And the paths for transcendence these days are the same as they were before. There is God and there is nation. So if you're not inclined to be of the wonderful pan-European, let's dissolve national identity into this great stew, and just by the way, France and Germany get to run the whole thing. If you actually want to seek some sort of national identity and pride in your national accomplishments, and Lord knows the French have many of those to be proud about, that's dangerous and is seen generally through the prism of alt-right Nazi heel-clicking yawal types. And if you add religion to the mix, you're going to have a press that will look at this with alarm. Because what used to be seen as a natural element of a society, a reasonable amount of belief in God and a reasonable amount of love of country are now the signs for people who are white nationalists or alt-rights and Nazis and the rest of it.

I mean the Washington Post managed to smear Ben Shapiro for pointing out that there was a Judeo-Christian heritage to the West that some people said are just simply code words for white supremacy. It really is remarkable because at some point they believe that all the foundational ideas that set the West apart ceased to be moored to their origins and became this sort of free floating concept that just came out somehow. Some people did something and now these are the accepted rules and anybody who points to nation or God is probably up to something. So there's the people that you should watch, Peter. Those are the accepted rules, and anybody who points to nation or God is probably up to something. So those are the people that you should watch, Peter. Those are the people. Yeah.

Don't watch that bishop. Petit. Is that his name? Bishop, Archbishop Petit? Opetit. Opetit. Rob, you just got back from church, as I recall. It was Good Friday, Peter.

I don't know what you've been doing. I mean, Peter, Good Friday is a very important day in the Christian religious calendar. I don't know if you know that. So important that even Episcopalians remember it. So would you care to give us an Easter? Would you care to offer an Easter meditation, Rob? An Easter homily?

No, I'm not. Meditation to me is something a little lighter and shorter. I don't know what to say really. It's – I don't – Did you participate in the reenactment of the passion? Which role did you play? I did not.

I did not. This year I did not. Last year unfortunately I was Peter, not interesting. All you have to do is deny and I don't know this guy. I don't know this guy. What I heard was you kept trying to rewrite it to get too few laughs. Something, something, a little spin on it. My favorite part is, of course, the best part in the whole patch, which is Pilot.

Yes. And by say best, I obviously don't mean, you know, bad. We can all identify with Pilot. Pilot is the best character, and I put put a whole i did a whole thing um because he's got he's pilot is the one who it's just kind of like okay uh and pilot actually only in one version only um decides to sort of go with it when it's pointed out to him that he's got a – there's a big political risk. Yes, exactly right. And that is sort of – I get it.

I get it. We already know what the traditional rabbis think of this new crazy rabbi. All through – not all, but most of the gospels, it's very clear what the establishment thinks of this guy. But what the totally neutral, disinterested Roman governor thinks is basically totally neutral and disinterested until someone points out to him, you know, this is going to be a lot of trouble for you. This guy walking around saying he's king. And then he thinks, oh. And then he actually, I think in one of the, I don't know which one it is, I think it's Mark, he runs back into his office.

He's like, they tell him this, he goes, oh, I got to get out of here. And he runs back into his office and thinks a little bit and then brings Jesus back and interrogates him because it rattles him. And I think that is probably where um a lot of us are yes possibly so and there's also the idea that it's fascinating that a character is so central to all of this should be basically guy this is a day at the office i mean this is his job and at the end of this you go home honey how was your day at work you wouldn't believe what i had to do what What's for dinner, et cetera.

And then thinking about it after this posting is done, I get to go back to Rome. I mean this character should be inserted into this at that point. And it always fascinated me because he's – we don't know enough. And whatever you want to project upon him, I think you can. Am I right there? Yeah. I think there's actually somebody – I mean I could could be wrong so one of our listeners will correct me but i believe that he is also a classic non-entity even in rome um really a classic functionary and there's no i mean rome

you know the romans kept records about a lot of stuff and there's no real records of him he was just uh is that true i think that is not quite true i think we do know that he was yeah we do he was he was reappointed to the position which is very unusual he served in effect two terms in in in uh in jerusalem and we also know that the the um the pilate were a big family in central there's a fair amount there's some there's a fair amount of coin they found the one coin and then something has been yeah yeah there there there's something in stone there's an inscription that mentions him and then i think a coin has been found more recently it seems pretty clear that he was a historical figure and a fairly powerful well

what would you say he's um he's sort of an assistant secretary rather than a cabinet official, that sort of thing? Well, I mean, he's more like a head of CENTCOM or something. Yes, yes. He's got an army and he's got soldiers.

Yes, and you're exactly the gospel for us in my church that's from John today. And Pontius Pilate says to the crowd, he says he is your king. And they reply, we have no king but Caesar. And Pontius Pilate thinks, oh, they're going to go to Caesar. They're going to go – if I don't – they're going to go to caesar they're going to go if i don't they're going to go over my head and then we get this wonderful moment where he says to jesus are you a king jesus replies i'm

i i bear witness to the truth and pilot says the most chilling words in all the western literature what is truth yeah oh well does he what why you – it doesn't matter. Not to a bureaucrat. To the governor. Yeah, it doesn't matter. Well, it's better than saying somebody in that scenario is saying it depends on what the meaning of is is, which itself is, or going into disquisition unknowns, and all of which are actually interesting philosophical positions we could take up another hour to do. But we shan't because we have to go. I'm going to say one more thing of interest in just a second, but before that I have to tell you this. The podcast was brought to you by Quip, by Zebit, and Calming Comfort Weighted Blankets. Support them for supporting us.

If you enjoyed the show, by the way, take a minute, if you will, to leave a review on iTunes. New listeners will discover them and help keep this show going. My last question is, are either of you attending an Easter egg roll on Sunday? I can't tell you how relieved I am to be able to say no. Rob? No, but I am throwing an Easter brunch, which I recognize is not the same. I miss more than anything secreting a whole bunch of little chocolates and plastic eggs around the outskirts of the church. Oh, really? Oh, really? Oh, you loved it. We had five kids, and the kids would all have kids over.

And the number of – it was almost as bad as putting gifts together and wrapping them on Christmas Eve. The number of eggs we had to produce and hide. Then they melted. The chocolate eggs would – oh, I just hated it. I know what you mean. When it was cold and we were doing it at home, yes, how many jelly beans can you put between the keys of the piano? But for many years, we would go over to my sister-in-law and brother-in-law's house. He's the French brother-in-law. And we would put the stuff in the plastic eggs and we would hide them all over the lawn next to this Catholic church enunciation in our neighborhood.

And the kids had a tradition of finding them. And they would be up in the crook of the tree and they'd be behind the shrubbery. And it was outside and it was usually a little chilly. And there was often some cast-off Belgian that my sister-in-law had roped into the event with his kids. And he'd be standing on the edge of the event smoking a cigarette and looking in a doer fashion over this strange American ritual. But I miss that, like all other things pertaining to the particulars of parenthood. I miss that.

Next year, perhaps. But next week, we'll have another podcast for you all. Who knows where the guests will be? Who knows what calamity will befall the Republic? Until then, you're just going to have to go to Ricochet, sign up as Rob would tell you, and join because we need you, and then you'll have access to the member feed where all sorts of wonderful

conversations bubble and boil all day long. Peter, Rob, it's been a pleasure, and we'll see everybody in the comments at Ricochet 3.0. Happy Easter. Next week, fellas. Hello. Yeah, this is me. Lord, it's been a long, long time. I know this ain't no social call So go ahead, get it off your mind You heard what? Well, it ain't true

I was here most all last night I got over you The day you left Could it be somebody lied They said what That I was crying I haven't shed a tear They said what? That I was crying. I haven't shed a tear in years.

That I spoke your name. Well, that's insane. I hardly noticed you're not here. That I showed your picture To some stranger Don't you think I got no pride They've been here at home Face down on the ship Lord, I bet somebody lied

But if they were true What would it matter to you? Would it change the way you feel? If the rumors were right Would you be here tonight To help this soul heart heal Well, don't worry It wasn't me Just someone whose world was torn in two.

Someone who looks a lot like me and loves someone like you So forget the tears I never cried Lord I bet somebody lied Ricochet Join the conversation