Speaker A: June 15, 2022. Here we are at the lawyer talk Roundtable, taking on uh all the biggest topics of the day. How do I know we're going to take on the biggest topics? I don't even know what they are. I've got some idea. But Norma is here and he's always got a list of topics we're going to take because they're always the biggest of the day. So that's all I know.

Speaker B: It's a full sheet of paper. You see that? It's a full sheet of paper, not.

Speaker A: A patent paper research. He spent seven days. Seven long arduous days.

Speaker C: All I did is I just have my sheets together, man, in front of the computer.

Speaker A: You probably went to the library and you pull all the books and the resources. Maybe some legal dicenials.

Speaker C: I did. I love librarians. Those little granny glasses and the little chain.

Speaker A: It is sort of a fetish.

Speaker C: Yeah, it's super kinky.

Speaker A: Yeah, it's like a school teacher librarian book.

Speaker C: I love it.

Speaker A: Hot for teacher, right?

Speaker C: All right.

Speaker A: So anyway, it's a roundtable here where we're taking on the bigger topics. As I said, we've got uh Brett's here, norm is here. We are ready to rock and roll. So let's just get right at it. Um norm, where do you want to go first? Because I got some ideas, too, but let's hit it.

Speaker C: Well, uh I heard an interview with Dr. Marty McCarry. So let's talk a little Covet news. All right.

Speaker A: Covid news.

Speaker C: So uh the dictator up North, uh Justin Trudeau.

Speaker A: Man, that guy is out of control.

Speaker C: He's out of control. Right. So um we all know what he did with the truckers, but he just was diagnosed, I think, over the weekend, or announced over the weekend that he has uh contracted COVID uh for the second time.

Speaker A: Yeah, I'm not even sure that's true. I'm sure it's true. He's sick. But there's so many false positives in the Covet, nobody's ever taken people aren't even acknowledged the variance in the false positives that occur in Covet. So you could test positive for Covet and have a cold.

Speaker C: Doctor. Marty, as you know, is a surgeon at Johns Hopkins, very highly regarded, and he is one of the handful of doctors that have been very um outspoken about some of the COVID myths and very critical of the CDC and NIH in uh terms of their release of information and how they have politicized Covet. Uh and he's just a straight up scientist. He's your classic medical doctor. No bullshit. Anyway, he said that uh Trudeau has been faxed four times, uh if you count the various boosters. So he's fully vaccinated, as people define, fully vaccine. He's had all the boosters and the original vax, and he pointed out how even the boosters so people who think that they're going to be somehow immune to COVID. Dr. Mccarry once again has pointed out that the boosters and the original vac are for the original strain of Coven 19. And so these various boosters, they don't do an Iota uh for all of the other subsequent strains. That's not to say that there are not immunizations available for those or I should say some kind of shot or vaccine, but the CDC has bottled those up. And so the latest boosters that you can get, basically the only thing they're addressing is a strain that has come and gone. And the subsequent boosters are just placebo.

Speaker A: And they feel good about getting them.

Speaker C: Unless you happen to get the original strain from some weird little community that the original strain is just now getting to like somewhere out in the middle of North Dakota, somewhere finally they're getting coveted after everybody else for two years is right. It's doing nothing for you. And the proof is that this guy who is fully boosted has all the latest stuff, just got sick for the second time, and yet he is one of the coveted Nazis out there. I just thought we are starting now to really see just how crooked this whole thing has been.

Speaker A: All you have to do. Look, you can come by this in several different ways. I have friends who like to come by this with the worldwide conspiracy theory that there are evil geniuses at the top pulling strings and want to kill us all with vaccines. I happen to subscribe to a theory that is as old as dirt. All you have to do is follow the money. All you have to do is follow the money. Who has an interest in the vaccines? Who is paying for them, who's getting paid out and follow the money. So if you have you have this situation where vaccine companies were granted immunity from lawsuit and the government contracted to buy all their doses. So what are they going to do? They're going to push vaccines because they're making money, and then it's worse because then you have people within the government who have an interest in the vaccines uh or in the sales of the vaccines. And uh Dr. Pachi, these people have interests or they own stock in or they have some weird like twice removed way that they're making money as a result of this. And this is not BS. All you have to do is research this. It's all there. So they're pushing the shots. And right now let's just say, like, you have this huge supply of shots that you didn't sell because everybody has now realized, well, it's not doing me any good. Everybody's got the vaccines getting covered anyway, so people just don't want it or they weren't taking it or whatever it is. So what are they going to do? They're going to try to keep pushing them and selling them because it's about the money.

Speaker C: Well, it's like the old saying. So there's uh the quip that goes, if the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer, then all your problems look like nails. The way that the medical establishment has set us up is they have prevented all the other tools they have denied us all the other tools. Prohibited. My way of saying prohibited, they've prevented and obstructed all of the other tools, all of the other Therapeutics, all the other ways to address this or perhaps even to just hurt immunity like Sweden.

Speaker A: Did.

Speaker C: Uh at any rate. So then all the problems, if the only toolbox, if they have on purpose intentionally given us a toolbox with just that one tool, then everything looks like it needs a vaccine. Because that's all they got. Because they've denied us everything else.

Speaker B: I just pulled up the story too. So he was around Biden, he was around Pelosi. Neither one seemed to be all that concerned about getting it. He's in the window of being contagious.

Speaker A: I'm uh sure that. I'm sure.

Speaker C: What the hell?

Speaker A: Our fearless leaders have all had this more times than the media will.

Speaker B: Good point.

Speaker C: How about the Biden farce on Jimmy Kimmel. So they show him come out from behind the curtain, he's got his mask on. Then he comes out on stage, is within a couple of feet of Jimmy's mouth. Like they're facing each other for like 2ft away and they're both expectorating and going on and on with um no mass.

Speaker A: It's all lies. Lies, damn lies. More lies.

Speaker C: It's.

Speaker A: People are just liars.

Speaker C: It's theater.

Speaker A: It's such nonsense.

Speaker C: Yeah, it really is.

Speaker A: And it's worked. These people are grabbing onto the virtue of being coveted ears. I'll call them like people who like, no matter what they got their mask on, no matter what, I got ten shots. No matter what, I'm keeping my distance because I'm a good person. Because I'm not going to jeopardize the health of the world by contaminating uh everybody.

Speaker B: And as long as they do that.

Speaker A: Without forcing it down my throat. Right?

Speaker B: Go for it.

Speaker A: Yeah. Have added, man.

Speaker B: I actually respect that they make the decision they're still wearing a mask because that's what they want to do. That's cool. I don't care.

Speaker C: Go shopping with a outfit on, having the tanks and the snorkel and clothes on, please.

Speaker A: I got sick around December and it was three or four weeks of up and down or whatever.

Speaker C: What was that called back then? I got it too. No, the strain.

Speaker B: Oh yeah. What was that thing? Yes, it was.

Speaker C: There's no booster for Amacron is what Dr. Mccarry is saying.

Speaker A: Now we got a new one. What's the latest one is like we had Delta uh Beta.

Speaker B: Yeah, I keep hearing the monkey pox thing. That's all I hear.

Speaker C: Hold on, Brett. You can't in a world health organization said yesterday you cannot call that monkey pox. That's racist.

Speaker B: Oh no.

Speaker C: Um how naming a disease after an animal like a mouse, a rabbit or whatever. A monkey. Um yeah. So somehow the word monkey is now racist because they say it is. Oh my God.

Speaker B: Come on.

Speaker C: Unbelievable.

Speaker A: Look up the world health organization's guidelines on monkeypox. This is where it's crazy. Because look, monkey pox was impacting exponentially more or by ratio. More homosexuals.

Speaker C: Right.

Speaker A: Than it was others.

Speaker C: It's passed by lesions. Most commonly is what I've read in the world.

Speaker A: I think it was probably just homosexual. It's probably people engaged in open sex, regular.

Speaker C: If you have an open sore and the other person you're infecting their tissue.

Speaker A: You know what they said, don't panic. This is no reason to stay home. This is no reason not to go out. There's no reason not to enjoy your lively or your uh fetishes or whatever it is. Everything opposite of what they told us with COVID. They said, no reason for that. It's such bullshit.

Speaker C: It is totally well.

Speaker B: And then monkey pox virus is transmitted from one person to another by close contact with lesions, lesions, body fluids, respiratory.

Speaker C: Droplets, material, betting home and maybe avoiding.

Speaker A: Casual sex with strangers. Don't worry about that. Go out and do all you want. That's how um it spread. Now, with Cobid, they forced us to stay home. They shut down my business. Everybody's business.

Speaker C: Sure.

Speaker A: They shut down businesses.

Speaker C: They shut down everybody but Walmart, Namaste.

Speaker A: Everybody except the people with lots of money.

Speaker C: Right.

Speaker A: Who made even lots and lots of.

Speaker C: McDonald's got to stay open. All the other restaurants were closed, right?

Speaker A: Exactly. So they shut down businesses, they shut down lives. They forced us to stay home. They quarantine, non sick people. But with monkey pox, where actually, you could say you can avoid contracting uh this disease by avoiding casual sex with strangers, right? They're encouraging that. Because why would we want to discourage that kind of behavior?

Speaker C: So it hearkens back to the whole age thing.

Speaker A: The age is the same way, the same kind of thing.

Speaker C: Let me ask you a lot of the question.

Speaker A: All right?

Speaker C: If uh we can shift gears.

Speaker A: All right. Next, are you up to speed a.

Speaker C: Little bit on this Paul Pelosi DUI thing?

Speaker A: I am not. I know that it happened. I'm not up to speed, but shoot, no.

Speaker C: Yeah.

Speaker B: The last I heard, it was no information about it at all. It's kind of shoved down. But that's been a few days ago.

Speaker C: So I was just wondering about the timetable. There's a lot of people saying that it's a little unusual. That is, I'm probably not using the right word, but arraignment is like two, three months after the incident. Is that uh kind of standard? You think those things happened already?

Speaker A: Procedurally. So here's the thing. Let's just start this way. This is a public record. I don't know the jurisdiction where it happened. I think it was out east somewhere.

Speaker C: Right? Napa.

Speaker A: I was out in Napa. Pelosi was out east in DC when it happened, right?

Speaker C: Allegedly, he hit a vineyard worker or a vineyard worker's. Truck hit him. It's unclear to me who's at fault and all that kind of thing.

Speaker A: It should be a public record. Whoever wants to know should be able to go to the jurisdiction where this occurred and look up what's been filed, generally speaking, in our procedure here in Iowa, I don't know, California.

Speaker C: Okay.

Speaker A: You would have an arraignment within five business days of your Ovi. There are reasons, though, and plenty of good ones and non nefarious ones where I could continue that. Okay. I could postpone the arraignment. I could you know, I used uh to be able to postpone arrangements for days and days and days and weeks, and there's all sorts uh of reasons I'm not going into. But we could do that. And that may be happening out there. So uh just because he hasn't had anything happen on the case yet doesn't necessarily mean that there's some corruption.

Speaker C: Okay. I'm sure he has great lawyers.

Speaker A: I'm sure he's got great lawyers.

Speaker C: They hired a PR firm on this, too.

Speaker A: Yeah, I'm sure he's got a team of uh people working on it. And here's the problem, though. And I run into uh this all the time when I represent sort of high profile cases. Prosecutors get into a spot where even if they would give somebody who is not uh high profile a break, they can't do that to the high profile person, or they feel like they can't because they're uh afraid of making it look like nepotism special treatment. Nepotism might not be the right special.

Speaker C: I know what you meant.

Speaker A: And um in California, though, I don't give them that much credit. I think he's going to get special treatment. He's going to pay off, buy, donate, do whatever. Uh he'll get some concessions on the case. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if it's some time dismissed. Now, uh that doesn't mean it's bad. It doesn't mean anything fraudulent has happened. It could be that behind the scenes he's done things like rehab. It could be behind the scenes they had a diversion program or something. All those things are possible. So I never would jump to the conclusion that he's getting special treatment yet. And I um would also say, if somebody really wanted to find out all, you have to go look. I mean, I could go look, if not uh online, then I could just get my happy ass on a plane, fly out there.

Speaker B: It looks like he was hit by a Jeep, but he was still intoxicated. He was above the .8 I think.

Speaker C: The exact facts are kind of in dispute. Uh i don't know that they've charged anybody with the accident, per se.

Speaker B: It doesn't look like it. Uh but I also have to say I um have nothing against older people but an 82 year old dude driving a Porsche.

Speaker C: Right.

Speaker B: While his wife, 82 years old, driving.

Speaker C: A Porsche, drunk, Nancy's out of town. My God, the TMZ people, the whole celebrity kind of media arm. They all want the dashcam video. They want to find out why it's so hush hush. Right?

Speaker A: In some States, the police dashcam video is public record immediately. Sometimes it's not. Sometimes you have to wait for the case to close. But it would be very interesting to get all the information. Look, if some big news organization uh wants to hire us to do their legal commentator, I'm open. Um so just call me. Well, let's keep our antennas on a plane. Fly up.

Speaker C: Let's keep our antennas up on that. Um i also wanted to ask another lawyer kind of question, and we touched on this with Jim Irvine from the Buckeye Firearms Foundation. So we've talked a little bit about this red flag things. So this new law that the bipartisan group got together in the Senate worthless. And they haven't written the legislation yet. From what I understand, they have a framework. One of the things is to bump the age from 18 to 21. But perhaps a more troubling thing. And I find that troubling, by the way, just because. Okay, we're going to bump the age on the draft, then. Are you telling me that somebody who can be drafted into war killed that that person can't have a firearm?

Speaker A: Yes. 18 year olds don't need to defend themselves.

Speaker C: Yeah. Let's ask Kyle Rittenhouse. So let's talk a little bit about red flags, if you would from a lawyer's point of view, do you think it would be okay to have a red flag if it was confined only to where a court in an open process where you get to speak for yourself, not a suicpante uh kind of proceeding, but one that's open. Would it be possible to do you think it would be a good idea to have a red flag law as long as it's just disable?

Speaker A: Yeah. Here's how I look at these things, because um as long as premise is never going to be true and I look at this like the death penalty. In theory, I'm in favor of a death penalty. Right. But in practice, I am not. I might run afoul of Conservatives. I might run afoul of Liberals. I might run a foul of anybody.

Speaker C: But I think Conservatives are on both.

Speaker A: Sides of that, swimming around in the pool of the court system. For the last 26 years, I have learned with uh resounding truth that courts are not always accurate. Courts are sometimes corrupt. Courts are subject to influence of individual uh personalities, individual beliefs and political beliefs for certain.

Speaker C: Uh sure.

Speaker A: And like the death penalty, it is easy to say that if I kill somebody, I should be executed. Except that's not what our law says. If I kill somebody, I might be executed if the prosecutor seeks the death penalty and the jury determines that I should die. And there are a bunch of factors. But what is to distinguish my factors from your factors, Norm? If you kill somebody and they decide you're going to live, but I'm going to die. And then there is this pesky problem that every month, if not sooner or more regularly, I see a blip on my new screen come up that most people don't get because they don't do what I do, where somebody has been exonerated after serving 20 years in prison on a murder, on a rape, and often crimes that could have resort or resulted in a death penalty. So if you think that it's always going to be done correctly, you're wrong.

Speaker C: On this red flag thing. Now, the red flag because you're taking your experience in other areas of the law and saying, I fully expect the red flag thing to be as messed up as you have seen in others.

Speaker A: Why? Because let's say I have a gun and Brett thinks I'm crazy. You're my neighbor. I know this crazy guy. He flies a Nazi flag. He runs around at night doing these maneuvers uh with uh his water pistols, acting like the real guns. And I think he's uh got a screw loose. So then you call up the red flag hotline.

Speaker C: You call up the Sheriff.

Speaker A: Sheriff Brigade. The Sheriff right. Now what happens? All right, so Sheriff knocks on my door. Can we come in? No. And then what's the rule now? Well, we've got this red flight complaint. So now we're allowed to come in and we're allowed to seize your firearm. No, you're not allowed to come in. Well, now you're obstructing official business. So we're going to put you in cuffs and go in and seize your firearm because we got a red flag complaint. That's one possibility. Now let's say another. You knock on my door and you say, look, here is a summons. You have to show up in court on a red flag complaint.

Speaker C: Yeah. What if it was like that?

Speaker A: In the meantime, you're allowed to have your gun.

Speaker C: Yeah, that's right.

Speaker A: All right, so I show up in court and the court says, all right, well, I think you're crazy because only crazy people would ever fly a Nazi flag. Only crazy people would ever run around at night.

Speaker C: So you get a bad judge, is what you're saying?

Speaker A: Well, not a bad judge. Bad standards. So what is the standard? Are you going to use the DSM, five or six or whatever at now and then we're on the spectrum is crazy enough where you can't have a gun. It's going to be impossible to come up with a consistently enforceable diagnosis uh for crazy. Now, it's sort of like pornography, right? We all know it when we see it. We know the guy in Texas who is killing cats and screaming, he's going to go shoot uh up the whatever the world. That guy's crazy and he shouldn't have guns. We all agree. I agree. So I'm not saying that I disagree. Sort of like the death penalty. It's not that I disagree that crazy people shouldn't have guns. It said, I have trouble understanding how it's not going to or how we can one, create standards that will be evenly applied. Um and two, and maybe I should add this before I conclude this is an issue that has polar opposite opinions uh that people care about to their core. Let me ask you, abortion.

Speaker C: So what if we did this and maybe this is an unfair thing and the standards are not right? What if we limited red flag situations? So what would have to happen? Let's suppose the legislation was we will adopt the existing standards that a probate court would use to declare you incompetent. In fact, what we're going to require for red flag things to kick in is a probate court itself. It has to be a probate court, and they have to apply all the same standards that they apply already to declare somebody incompetent. What if that was a standard? Are our incompetency standards as they exist right now for a plethora excuse me, of other involvements uh in society, like the ability maybe to write a will, the ability to get married?

Speaker A: Well, we already have something like that. I believe there's already something like that in place. So what if it was that well.

Speaker C: Even if that give you more assurance that it would be fair if it was a probate court that made this decision?

Speaker A: No, because, look, and again, I'm not going to poopoo it and say, don't do it. Here's my I'm just looking for a.

Speaker C: Way that it can happen.

Speaker A: Here's my input on this. Things like this sound good because we can all agree on them. But as they get applied, as it trickles down to the people with their boots on the ground applying, it's still a judge. It's still an individual making a complaint. It's still an individual psychologist who's going to have a different I've had different opinions out of probate court many times where the States expert says uh my client is perfectly capable of standing trial and uh is not incompetent. And then I hire my own and they say, no, this guy's wacko there's no way he doesn't understand what's going on.

Speaker C: So probate judge is supposed to be experienced in parsing. That right.

Speaker A: Yeah, but who's going to present the other side of it?

Speaker C: I got you. Okay.

Speaker A: Who's going to represent this guy have $25,000 to say Steve is not incompetent.

Speaker C: So Steve right now let's take a case that's less loaded with all of these constitutional things. Let's take your right to drive. So I'm a nephew or I'm a grandson um or something or uh a neighbor, and this little old lady backs out of her driveway or little old man backs out of his driveway every day and hits the telephone pole. And it's obvious to those who care about him and those who live near him that this person has bad eyesight or they have dementia or there's some issue. How does the BMV determine what's the process for de licensing somebody's right to drive in Ohio?

Speaker A: I'll just tell you how my dad did it.

Speaker C: Yeah.

Speaker A: My dad intentionally let my grandmother's license.

Speaker C: Expires and didn't help her get a new one.

Speaker A: Took her in knowing full well she couldn't that she didn't have glasses with her and she couldn't pass the eye test. Okay.

Speaker B: So the state was the um bad guy on that one. Exactly.

Speaker A: But these are a little bit more concrete. There are some like eye tests. It's a little bit more concrete.

Speaker C: But I know doctors, for example, if you're an epileptic and you've had a seizure, a doctor will inform the BMV to suspend somebody's license for so many days. And that happens, right, until it's proven that they're recovered.

Speaker A: A lot of times, though, I have problems with that. Look, you and I have friends that have gone through this. Here's the thing. It doesn't come up as much because it's not a hotbed politically charged thing. Like I was saying before, it's like this is people's right to drive people's. It's not a right privilege. Privilege to drive is not going to trigger the guttural response as a fire.

Speaker C: I hear you. That's why I'm trying to see if the analysis of corruption. I got you people who have an.

Speaker B: Agenda behind their politically driven.

Speaker C: You're afraid fear is the wrong word, but you're concerned perhaps a probate judge instead of just deciding something about their competency. If it's competency to own weapons, they may have an axe to grind because it's going to err on the side.

Speaker B: You've represented kids that have got swept up in the political wave of whatever uh it might be, and they got caught in the wave of it, and they didn't get a fair shake.

Speaker A: Let me give a background to what I'm saying here, because I'm not against red flag laws. I question how they can be enforced uniformly and fairly without political influence, without.

Speaker C: Action grinding both ways.

Speaker A: So you get somebody who's got a pro gun agenda, they're going to err on the uh side of giving the guy's gun back. You got a judge who's on the other agenda, they're going to take it away. So here's my backdrop. I have seen this. I have represented people accused of crimes, and only because of a certain status that they hold in society, or only because of a job that they do in society, or only because it happens to cross into a sphere of a political charged area of debate uh of the times, they uh get treated differently, and it happens all the time. So if you did the same thing, in other words, and it wasn't in this political sphere, uh you're not going to get the same consequence. And it's driven by votes. It's driven by prosecutors with political agendas to say, we want to say we're tough on this issue, and therefore we're going to treat this very seriously. We're going to target certain things. We've seen it out of DOJ. Right now, we're seeing out of DOJ with guns. Back in Obama's years, all of a sudden, I was getting people charged with regulatory gun crimes. And I'm not talking like they were possessing guns and using them for crimes. They were engaged in gunsmithing and they took the gun to their garage to work, and they got indicted on a five year federal felony.

Speaker C: Yeah. Because they were construed as a manufacturer or something.

Speaker A: Right. They screwed up the paperwork, clearly screwed it up. Actually. Not always clearly screwed it up. But let's assume clearly screwed it up. But then all of a sudden indicted on crimes. I could put them in prison for decade.

Speaker C: Right.

Speaker A: The next year, after Obama left office, I didn't see any of those.

Speaker C: That's crazy.

Speaker A: All right. So tell me what that means. And it's the same under. If I really dug into it with the Republicans in charge, I could find their agenda. They're a little sure.

Speaker C: So now I'm starting to come around to the same concern you're bringing up. So I started out being a little sympathetic to Matthew McConaughey's little speech on red flags. And I sort of saw if it was fair, I sort of saw the logic. Right. Okay. So there are people who are judged by impartial Magistrates to be truly nuts. Let's not let them have guns. I think we all agree that would be great in a perfect world if we could do it. But now I'm starting to see how this would work in real life. I'm thinking as a Magistrate. So I'm a Magistrate, and I don't want any tragedies that can be tracked back to my decisions. Yes.

Speaker A: So you're going to be there.

Speaker C: The Sheriff's going to come to me and a guy's ex wife or a guy's current wife or his daughter or whatever. I don't know all the dynamics. All I know is that I have these people who don't have a record, don't seem to have an accident grind telling me that this person that they're related to or that they know or somebody that they were called on in the case of a Sheriff, that this person looks to be nutty. Right. Possibly unstable. So I'm a judge. Right. And I got to think, now what is the safe thing to do for society? Is it to let this guy keep his constitutional rights, which I let's say I take that very seriously. Or is it. Well, there's a small percentage chance here that this guy really is going to do something. The safe thing for me to do as a judge that runs for elections every four years and wants to keep my position. The safe thing is, hey, take away his rights.

Speaker A: Right. It's not even that there's a small percentage of a chance that this uh guy is not mentally stable to have a gun. It is that you don't want somebody in public accusing you of letting crazy.

Speaker C: People out of being lax.

Speaker A: Even if nothing happens, the backlash itself would be concerning. Right.

Speaker C: I'm seeing that now, Steve.

Speaker A: I get this all the time and things like stay away orders, civil protection orders where I've represented people who are accused of just this week, I had somebody who was accused of behavior that resulted in a civil protection order that frankly, was nonsense. It was total nonsense. But the judge issued the order because the judge didn't want to be the one who said, I didn't issue the order. And something else happened.

Speaker C: Right.

Speaker A: And this guy now can't leave his house. That's too far. But he's restricted in his freedom now in a way, on evidence and testimony that I think was and it was biased uh and it was testimony from his rivals. Right. From people who had an accident. How is it going to be any different with guns?

Speaker C: Well, to bend this a little bit, just the same kind of mindset, I think is driving the decision. It's really a knee jerk kind of reaction without a lot of thought. But I think the same impulse is driving the school district superintendents that are out of hand saying, oh, no, oh, hell no. I'm not going to allow teachers or the janitor or administrator. Uh no, because what if that guy's gun goes off, he shoots himself in the foot or a child by accident, or they've had a bad day and they become the shooter.

Speaker A: Right. So you don't want to be the one that lands on you and you take a politically popular position in your voting district.

Speaker C: Right.

Speaker A: I guess I would say maybe the best way to conclude is this. I am certainly open to reading the legislation or the regulatory scheme that somebody might create, but I am skeptical because what's going to happen is this, quote, we got to do something, end quote.

Speaker C: Right.

Speaker A: And that something always looks good and it always sounds good, but in practice, it's a disaster. And the problem with this is, as our friend Thomas Ol would write, is that the politicians who create this crap are never around long enough to have to deal with the backlash of it. It's always the next person's problem, and then they blame that person for the problem, not the first person's incompetent or ineffective regulatory scheme.

Speaker B: Well, to get to that point of saying we've got to do something means you've kicked the can down the road so damn far. Now you're up against a wall and you have to say that we have to do something. Well, what about ten years ago when.

Speaker A: People use this word, what they're really saying is I acknowledge that what I'm going to do here won't solve the problem, but it's going to look good and we got to act like we're doing something.

Speaker C: Right.

Speaker A: That's really what they're saying.

Speaker C: There's almost a relationship uh uh uh that's proportional, that the less deliberative Congress is, the quicker that they react to anything, the more impulsive it is. Almost in every case, the quicker that they decide to do something, the worse the outcomes. They're not being deliberative in this case at all.

Speaker A: And it's true across the board. Pick an agenda.

Speaker C: I mean, the facts of you evolve are still coming out. In fact, just this past week, the school district police chief, not the city police chief. But the one in charge of the school districts, cops, the SROs and all that stuff. Now he's on the scene. Right. He's got something like 50, tops of various jurisdictions there. He's in charge of the school district's police force. He has now stated on the record that he did not know everybody thought he was in charge. He himself is saying, hey, don't blame me. I didn't know I was in charge. Can you believe that?

Speaker A: It is a fundamental failure of enormous magnitude and magnitude uh couldn't be any more severe.

Speaker C: So it's now coming out. Cops were in that building within two minutes and didn't stop it because they.

Speaker A: Didn'T have their body armor.

Speaker C: Yeah, but they were in the building two minutes after the perp. Right. And did not act. I mean, it's unbelievable.

Speaker A: Before I go there, let me just say this. I heard a stat of the last six school shooters. They had one thing in common. They had lots in common. But one big thing in common. No fathers in the home.

Speaker C: Oh, yeah, that's huge.

Speaker A: No father.

Speaker B: You didn't hear that thread.

Speaker C: That's huge.

Speaker A: Uh all these politicians always want to make these kind of things single cause outcomes.

Speaker C: Right.

Speaker A: And they're not right.

Speaker C: In fact, the people who preach to us about all of the root causes and sociology behind a lot of problems in our country, they seem to on purpose put that on the shelf and ignore it when it comes to gun crime.

Speaker A: Right. And then the other side, they just.

Speaker C: Want to ban the item. They don't want to talk about the behavior and what led up the root causes. That's very unpopular to talk about because we don't want to talk about the absence of fathers.

Speaker A: And then the pro gun people won't go here. They won't say this. Well, wait a minute. Because there are lots of kids out there without fathers who don't shoot schools.

Speaker C: Right.

Speaker A: So that is one thing.

Speaker C: It is one factor.

Speaker A: One thing in common. It may not even be a factor, but it needs to be studied. Another thing in common is they all procured firearms. So you could say that firearms are the problem. It's a fallacy.

Speaker C: Another thing that's common is they're all fascinated by violence. And I know you didn't like this comment when I brought it up, but I would like you to think about this a little bit. And maybe I'm being too strong. Maybe you just didn't like my absolute tone. But um I think these games, the video stuff and the games and the online stuff and these first um person chase things where you shoot uh aliens or soldiers from World War II or Call of Duty and all this stuff, the point of those games is to fuzz up and make uh you think while you're in that world, while you're in that make believe world is to make you feel like it's as real as possible. That's the whole thing that triggers all those endorphins makes it so attractive to it, especially to young men when they're playing these games is the idea that it's virtual. I'm actually in this, but I don't get hurt. So I can blow away a couple of hundred zombies. Right. With my machine gun. But when I take off my virtual goggles and put down my Gameboy controls, nobody really got hurt. But the point of those games is to disassociate people from reality and put them in an unreal world and train them up and condition them to feel like they can be violent in their fantasy world. But in the real world, we know they can't do that. And I think a lot of young men are struggling trying to figure out what is the real world. Is it that world?

Speaker A: Okay. Well, I'm willing to concede that we should create a hypothesis that uh says, I wonder if those school shooters or people prone to this kind of behavior all play games, and if so, what impact?

Speaker C: Well, I'm not saying all it's a huge factor, Steve. Let me.

Speaker A: Statistically, though. It's not.

Speaker C: Yes, statistically it is.

Speaker A: No, statistically it's not. There are more people who play violent video games and by enormous margins.

Speaker C: But it's statistically just as valid as your point about boys without fathers.

Speaker A: It may be a common thread that's all those kids that engaged in school shootings engaged in gameplay.

Speaker C: You don't have to say all the majority. Certainly do. I mean, that is something I've read.

Speaker A: How many?

Speaker C: Yeah, it's the majority. Let me just get this on the record as proof of the fact that video games affect the brain. Why would advertisers spend millions of dollars to place an ad in the middle of the Super Bowl, for example? Right. Because those videos will influence people to do something that the advertisers want them to do, buy a product, rent something, invest in something, whatever it is, whatever their goal is. So if you can influence people by what they see of video. Right. In a Super Bowl ad, the same people in Hollywood that produce those cannot come to me, credibly and say that their video games don't influence this very same receptor.

Speaker A: Sure. So you've got people. It's probably I mean, come on. I'm not disagreeing with you. What I'm saying is there are going to be a long list of possible contributors uh to this behavior.

Speaker C: Right.

Speaker A: And if we're going to really be honest about it, we need to look at all of them, and there has to be a really careful assessment of it. It's not just that people come from a single family home, doting mother. It's not just that people play video games.

Speaker C: No, it's not just one people.

Speaker B: Because there are some people that get addicted to the pornography much quicker than others. It's a chemical imbalance balance.

Speaker A: Whatever consume alcohol. I think. I don't. Because it doesn't work for me. Right. So look, is alcohol the problem? I don't know.

Speaker C: Yeah. You drop acid.

Speaker A: I'm about the mess. That doesn't work for you guys. Nice. Look, there is no recreational methamphetamine use. It recreationally.

Speaker C: How do you not smile after they say that? Right.

Speaker A: It's not like you're going to take that now. Methamphetamine. You could say it is because a lot of people take it for radiation.

Speaker C: What I like about where we're going here and I like your list and I would not say it's exclusively one thing or the other. I agree with you. I think it's more complex and I think it varies by perfect.

Speaker B: I don't think it can be. It has to be a combination um of many things.

Speaker A: The anti gun people make it a zero sum equation.

Speaker C: That's right.

Speaker A: And shame on that.

Speaker C: It's just the item almost to the.

Speaker A: Exclusion of the one thing of the low hanging fruit we could do right now, um which is put security in place to protect our kids.

Speaker C: Right.

Speaker A: Look, I'm not saying by putting security in place and protect our kids, should we ignore all these other things?

Speaker C: That's right.

Speaker A: I am saying that we can all do right now.

Speaker C: Hey, mom and dad, if your son or daughter is spending every waking hour except when they're in class playing violent computer games, you need to get a handle.

Speaker A: Computer games. They're running around with acting in ways uh that are counterculture.

Speaker C: Yeah, right.

Speaker A: That's really what this is.

Speaker C: That's right.

Speaker A: We all know when we see it. But now we have to understand how can we identify it like we're playing the Tom Cruise movie here? Minority Report. Um yes. It's very difficult to do that. It's very unconstitutional in lots of ways to do that.

Speaker C: But if you're a parent, you are doing that every damn day.

Speaker A: Government doing it.

Speaker C: If you're a parent.

Speaker B: Right. You just got a man up, woman up and go, yeah, stop.

Speaker C: What's with the Gothic where they cut.

Speaker A: The tattoos uh on your face?

Speaker C: Yeah, right. And why are you in the basement with the lights off playing indulgent, kill a Nazi all day?

Speaker A: The rental indulgence of behavior uh is a huge factor. Look, this is not to criticize mothers and not to criticize fathers. It is to say that both are important. So a mother is going to be more prone to say, oh, sweetie, you had a long day. You can stay up a little um bit later and watch your favorite TV show on your phone. The dad's going to say, screw that, rub some dirt in it and go to bed. And the mother's going to say, well, come on. And the balance in the middle of that is what's important.

Speaker C: Right.

Speaker A: But otherwise the kids and if you're missing one or the other, there are.

Speaker C: Problems that ensue or both. Well, like this Ramos guy, right. He didn't have his mom or his father.

Speaker A: Right. Worst case scenario, right.

Speaker C: He's living with grandma and grandpa that he bullied and then he shot the grandma in the face would have killed Grandpa if he was even at home, stole their truck.

Speaker A: And look, people hate me for this. And if you hate me for it, so be it. Or you think I'm a politically um incorrect asshole, so be it. Like I see it. Yeah, I see kids coming in with either without a father figure. By coming in, I mean in my office charged with crime father figure or with a father figure who is sort of checked out and with an overprotective mother. So a boy with an overprotective mother. And I'm going to define what I mean by that. Not clinically, but what I see.

Speaker C: Okay.

Speaker A: If I ask the kid what happened, the mom answers, if the kid doesn't call me to make the appointment, the mom doesn't. I'm talking like 18 year olds. The mom bugs me um constantly. More than the sun in um the interaction in the office. The son treats the mother poorly.

Speaker C: It sounds like the mother is wanting you to be the father.

Speaker A: The kids are spoiled brat.

Speaker C: Yeah. A lot of children today are indulged spoiled brat. A lot of children today I would call feral. Feral. They're left to their own devices in nature. Mom is that would be better. That would be better, frankly, because nature.

Speaker A: Is one hell of a teacher.

Speaker C: Well, I think we're raising I'm talking.

Speaker A: About mothers who protect their kids from nature.

Speaker C: Well, I hear what you're saying, but that's in the context of when the kids in trouble. So now they're being protected. No, I mean, where was that mom? Asserting herself. That's what I want to know.

Speaker A: But it's the type of assertion. So is this the mother who's going to go beat up the kid? I'm not fighting your son.

Speaker C: Right. Helicopter moms.

Speaker A: That's what I'm talking about.

Speaker C: Yeah. So what I'm talking about is kids left to their own devices, and you end up with Lord of the Flies, you end up with William Golding's nightmare where you've got children raising children, children in charge of other children, because those are the only figures in their life that have any disease predicted the future.

Speaker A: Yeah, in a lot of ways.

Speaker C: That's right.

Speaker A: But again, this is what I see, this overprotective mother. And by overprotective, I mean not letting your kid fail, making sure that he's got a starting position at second base on the baseball team by being the loud, obnoxious model. Our kids need to fail. They need to fail miserably, and they need to fail in a way that is harmless, and it always is harmless at a young age. I'm not saying walk out in traffic. What I'm saying is if your kids failing, I'll fess up. I had a meeting at school one time, and I'm not going to mention which my family uh of sons, which my sons was like, look, the kids failing. And I looked at the group, at whoever all the teachers over there, and I was like, well, so what? And they're like, well, we need to do blah, blah, blah, blah. I was like, we'll do it.

Speaker C: Drop the hammer. Yeah.

Speaker A: And I said, what happens if he fails?

Speaker C: Well, crickets consequences.

Speaker A: Give him an F. Has he earned an F?

Speaker C: Give him an F and let the consequences flow.

Speaker A: Because at 6th grade, it doesn't make a Hill of beans difference in the context of his life.

Speaker C: So, dude, it's just like my dad told me, Norm, I catch drugs in your room, right? I was not using drugs, but this was his speech. Used on all his kids. If I catch you with drugs, I'm not just punishing you. I'm calling the cops. I'm calling the cops. You're going to go through the legal system if I catch you. Now, this is my dad who's a defense attorney. My dad who's a judge. My dad who's a politician. He's saying, I'm going to call the artillery strike on you. Just fucking dare me, and I'll do it.

Speaker A: I'll do it.

Speaker C: That was my dad.

Speaker A: And I have told my son same thing. Look, you got a defense lawyer for a dad?

Speaker C: Yeah.

Speaker A: Sorry I don't work for you.

Speaker B: Get out of jail free card. Because of that, I'll tell a little.

Speaker C: Quick story on my dad that'll make everybody lighten up this discussion a little bit. So I got my first ticket. I went through a pink light, right? Get a ticket. I'm on my temps, even, okay? I wanted that license to go to the prom, right? So I just got my license going to go to the junior prom in high school, got the date, everything's cooking. I get this damn ticket and I go, okay. God, I've got the best lawyer in town. My dad. Dad, will you go down to Juvy court with me and be my attorney? My dad says, sure, I will, son. I go down there. Now, my dad knew everybody at the court. He knew all the judges. He himself was a politician elected to office just like all these judges. So I go down there, my dad says, judge says, Good uh morning, Norm. How are you doing? What are you here for? I'm here for my son. He's been charged with going through a light, and he wants to contest it, Your Honor. Well, let's hear the case. And my dad says, Well, Your Honor, let me put it this way. You're uh going to have to do what you got to do. I looked at my dad, I said, you got to be shitting me. This is my F. Lee Bailey quality row. Yeah, man, are you shitting me? I could have come down here and done that. I could come down here and say, well, you're honored. Just lay it on me. They took my license away. You were set up on a shelf.

Speaker B: So badly on that one.

Speaker A: Oh, my God.

Speaker C: That was an object lesson, baby, that you screw up. So my parents were tough on me. I'm not saying I turned out perfect, okay. I've never been arrested for a felony.

Speaker B: You get the consequences of your actions.

Speaker C: I learned a few things.

Speaker A: Uh you had boundaries.

Speaker C: I had guard rails and boundaries.

Speaker A: Yeah. It's like when I took my kids bowling as kids. I never realized this until I had kids that they have these rails that come up when you bowl. They can't go to the gutter. Yeah, right.

Speaker C: Otherwise there's no fun because they're all going to the gutter.

Speaker A: Uh they can hit no pins, right. They can roll it in such a way that they don't hit anything. When do you take the guardrails down and how often? And on what, sir? I don't know. Be a parent, right.

Speaker C: Um when do you take the baseball off the tee? Right?

Speaker A: Yes. It's the hardest thing I've ever done as a parent. We've talked about this. One of the hardest things I've ever done as a parent is to watch my kids screw up. It is nauseatingly. Painful for me to do that. Nauseating to watch my kids ride the pine in the Little League.

Speaker C: It is like, damn it, I know.

Speaker A: Everything I can do not to want to go intervene.

Speaker C: Exactly.

Speaker A: And I resisted as much as I could. I wasn't perfect about it. I'm sure I have committed many wrong decisions as a father.

Speaker C: Sure.

Speaker A: But I think if we let our kids not fail or if you have one parent and I'm just saying, generally speaking, what I'm observing it's mother. I'm sure there's overprotective father should do the same damage, probably as it is now.

Speaker B: I think it all depends on this. It depends on the situation.

Speaker A: Given the dynamic. But if you're not calling this stuff uh out, it's going to keep going. And anyway, I think we beat this horse.

Speaker C: Let me ask you about another police related thing. So this particular past few days locally, I think it was either a consent agreement uh or legislation, an ordinance. But something was done that will henceforth bar the Columbus City Police from using traditional tools. Uh nonlethal tools to contain crowds.

Speaker A: Stupid.

Speaker C: Isn't that stupid? So we're allowing people to protect themselves, which I'm in favor of permit.

Speaker A: I got to do something syndrome.

Speaker C: This is all based um on how they reacted to the high street violence during the BLM Antifa uh March that they put out tear gas and rubber bullets. I don't know what the hell they did. I wasn't here. But I mean, okay, if they made some mistakes, in that case, they paid a fine.

Speaker A: Address the uh individuals who screwed up, address the training problems, address at all.

Speaker C: But to take away their non lethal. So now what are they going to do?

Speaker A: More death.

Speaker C: They're going to go up to people and say, Gee, golly, Jeepers, I really wish you wouldn't kick that big glass window in more death.

Speaker A: More death. Uh it's ridiculous. I don't mean just at the hands of the police, I mean at the hands of the people who weren't stopped by the police. Uh so you follow what I'm saying? If the police don't have measures, then.

Speaker C: It just amps up the situation.

Speaker A: It's a good parallel to what we've been talking about as parents.

Speaker C: Right.

Speaker A: So if we create an environment where the inmates can run the asylum, where the criminals out there and they know it, have card block and they know it and they're not stopped, it's a.

Speaker C: Police free zone, basically, is what we're creating.

Speaker A: It's chaos.

Speaker B: Yeah. So it restricts the use of chemical agents, helicopters and explosives and pyrotechnics in order to avoid their misuse.

Speaker C: Help me out. Was that legislation or is it a court decision?

Speaker B: It says the legislation.

Speaker C: Okay.

Speaker B: So what the hell does that mean?

Speaker A: You've got some members of a legislative.

Speaker C: Body, city ordinance, city or not, experts.

Speaker A: By any measure in police or hamstrings stringing the resolution. This is political. And what they're talking about, Pyrotechnic, they're talking about flashbang grenades, stuff that is very uncomfortable, maybe even can cause some injury. Uh but when they do that, so say they're going to execute a search warrant, they're going to shoot these flashbangs in, and it basically stuns everybody. I can see the arguments, how this is so unfair and it's got this racially disparate impact and whatever it would be. But when they do that, at least nobody's getting shot.

Speaker C: Right.

Speaker A: Because if the police just go in and they um get some force in response, then it's more likely that they're going to get shot. Now, I'm not advocating for the use of these flashbacks, and I'm sure there are downsides, but wouldn't it be better to say we need to explore this and determine the best use of these things and train and learn and educate our police force on what to do and when and how to do with the military?

Speaker C: This is classic. So we do have a demonstration that we do know a lot about, and we know what happened. The Kyle Rittenhouse situation where the police set up barricades and they did not act proactively. They did nothing. They were barred by their local Council in that city, Waukeshaw. They were barred from taking preventative action, non lethal means. So even written house after the shooting, went up to the police and said, hey, I just shot some guys. They said, Son, go home. That's what they told him. They weren't even willing to deal with the shooting.

Speaker A: And that's why I said that's.

Speaker B: How passive the police going on at the same time, too. Yeah.

Speaker A: All of us were debating in our kitchen tables and our workplaces, et cetera, when this crap was going on in Columbus, somebody that a close friend of mine, she and I were debating this. And then when all of a sudden we had this curfew that I wasn't allowed downtown at my office at certain hours, I was absolutely indignant. And she was like, well, this is what you wanted. The government response I said no. What I wanted was the government to step in and enforce the damn law the second it happened. So the second they shut down High Street during rush hour, right? Or the second they don't have a permit and they're taking over the city. You got to put it down. Are you a First Amendment? Yes, I am. Go get a permit. Have your protest. In fact, I will help you get the damn permit.

Speaker C: Sure.

Speaker A: I will represent you for nothing to get the permit. That's how firmly I believe in First Amendment freedoms. I don't care. People hate me for it. I don't care if it's a KKK. I don't care if it's black. No matter. Everybody's got the right. Everybody's got the right.

Speaker B: So another piece of this is while employees of the city, including the Division of Police, are prohibited from using the infliction of pain to punish and deter nonviolent protesters, uh so even the city employees go, okay, come on in, handful. Come on in the building.

Speaker C: Right.

Speaker B: Take it over here's. My office.

Speaker A: Think how vague that is exactly. Are we talking about mental pain? We talk about physical pain. What is physical pain, Norm? Your Thomas repair totally different than mine. Well, dude, that needs a definition.

Speaker C: Well, that's the end of tear gas right there, right?

Speaker A: That's the end of the Mace.

Speaker C: Yeah.

Speaker A: And you know what? It sucks getting Mace.

Speaker B: A city employee. Can I carry a Mason? Use it a little bear spray.

Speaker A: So what's going to happen? I'm going to start carrying a damp gun, and if somebody attacks me, I'm just going to use it's. Probably not going to be that kind of.

Speaker C: Well, I mention Kyle written. Now, that is what happens. People take the law not into their own hands, but they start to enforce the law. They become the police.

Speaker A: And I felt it. I didn't act on it, but I felt it. I was down here during those riots and there were windows getting smashed around my building, and I felt it. I felt violated.

Speaker C: Sure.

Speaker A: And I didn't necessarily disagree with the protesting.

Speaker C: That's what's so crazy about the means. What are you people doing?

Speaker A: I thought to myself, nobody's going to protect my building from having its windows shattered except for me. So do I go buy plywood and screw it into the aluminum window frames, or do I screw it into the bricks? What do I ruin? And what's going to be easiest to fix? Or do I sit here with my own weapons and defend my building?

Speaker C: Well, we know. What do I do? We know what the Korean shop owners did in La, right? During the Rodney Keith King thing. The Korean Quickie March in La, where the guys stood out in front of their shops with their AR fifteens. Those shops uh didn't get burned down, right? Because they were the police. Because the police were in absentia. They gave up the city to the protest.

Speaker A: And the problem is so regular people.

Speaker C: Like Kyle Rittenhouse of these Korean shop owners, they got to become the police.

Speaker A: We all recognize that this can happen and the police can't stop at all. But now we have legislation that prohibits them from stopping it peacefully or without lethal force.

Speaker C: And the people who want to stage a violent uh riot now know it.

Speaker B: They know it. The game plan is right now, the.

Speaker C: Policy is in print.

Speaker A: And what happens if somebody comes through the window of my building and I'm sitting there with a firearm and I use it?

Speaker C: Right.

Speaker A: What happens?

Speaker C: You're the bad guy immediately.

Speaker A: Nothing good.

Speaker B: Nothing good.

Speaker A: Nothing good.

Speaker C: Not for that person and not for you.

Speaker A: Either way, I don't take any pleasure. In fact, it would ruin my life if I had to take somebody's life.

Speaker C: Right.

Speaker A: It would ruin my life. Right. My mental health would tank. Right. It would ruin my life.

Speaker C: Right. Yeah.

Speaker B: Along with the family around that person that came in because he or she may have got swept up in the momentum of the movement and came in. I know I advocate for this. This is a little bit tangential, but city Council would change their mind if somebody came in to their house, into their meeting, into their Chamber. That section right there just security. Yeah.

Speaker A: They all hire private security.

Speaker B: Yeah. That section right there says nobody in that room can stop them uh from coming into that Council champion. That's amazing.

Speaker C: Isn't that the irony that we're having right now over the January 6 hearings?

Speaker A: Yes.

Speaker C: In contrast to how the federal government's viewing the assassination threat on Brett Kavanaugh and the threats to Amy Kony Barrett and the other people who possibly are going to issue this decision that overturns Roe, that implied approval of violence and uh mass demonstrations and disturbing them at Church, disturbing them in their homes, even blowing off uh The New York Times on page 23. That's where they cover the assassination attempt on Kavanaugh. We all know that if it was a Trumper that was going to assassinate a Liberal on the Supreme Court, it uh would be a major story.

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker C: Right. So it's a two faced hypocrisy.

Speaker A: If there were a pro lifer caught with weapons outside Ruthgater Ginsburg's house years ago.

Speaker C: Right.

Speaker A: It would have been or Sotomayor.

Speaker C: Um i mean, people would wig out. It would be all they talk about.

Speaker A: It would be world news and they.

Speaker C: Would shut down those riots on their street. They would enact all those new laws, new rules, the existing federal laws that Merrick Garland is not charging anybody with. That's on the books, which we've discussed. And Rob Muse said isn't forcible section 1815 seven. I think what it was, it's on the books now that when there is a decision pending in a court that you cannot protest uh in front of the house to influence the decision of a judge, a juror or any of the uh legal participants in the trial.

Speaker B: Uh at a SCOTUS level.

Speaker C: Well, at any federal court, you can.

Speaker A: Have it both ways. You cannot have it both ways. And I would be equally outraged if there was an armed assassin outside any Liberal judges.

Speaker C: I will. I need to. And that's the difference. We are consistent.

Speaker A: I try to be.

Speaker C: We are prolife, we are anti violence, and we love everybody.

Speaker A: That's right. I always try to call out the flaws and the logic that I see. Not that I have the answers, but I think it's worthy of discussion. Like the red flags laws. There's more to discuss there than meets the eye on both sides.

Speaker C: I learned a lot from you today, Steve. My position changed because of our conversation.

Speaker A: Uh i'm not against it. I just need to see it needs.

Speaker B: To be fleshed out more.

Speaker A: Yeah, I need to see it. And how can we do it consistently? How can we make sure it's not influenced by the political agendas of those who have the political agendas?

Speaker B: And you certainly open my eyes to that. Moving too fast, that kneejerk reaction. We got to do something. Reaction that's opened my eyes over the past years, working on the podcast with you and stuff. It really has. It's like you're right. Slow down, slow down.

Speaker A: This problem wasn't built in a day.

Speaker B: Exactly.

Speaker C: Good advice. Good advice.

Speaker A: All right. You got any Nuggets we can plow through and then we'll wrap it up.

Speaker C: Well, there are some very interesting things. Uh so just some blips on the radar screen. So out in Arizona, I don't know why this takes almost two years after the election. And it just shows you that it's a fate accomplished by the time they figure out what's crooked in an election. If you haven't taken steps to protect the ballot process ahead of time, it's too late. But at any rate, they have now determined that for sure, 19,000 ballots uh in a state that was determined by 10,000 votes, 19,000 ballots came in late past the deadline and should not have been counted. They now agree in Arizona that that's the case. And Furthermore, a DNC operative and public office holder has been charged, and some of the people around her have turned States evidence uh for harvesting and using coercive uh tactics, political tactics to force people to vote a certain way. So, in fact, there is election fraud, and in fact, there is proof. And this was in one of the four States that through the vote found that the mules were very active at the state of uh Arizona. Another very interesting thing that I know hits a hot button with a lot of people is uh in the school system. The Missouri attorney general um has now subpoenaed the records of seven school districts over surveys taken at the behest of contractors of CRT materials, books and videos uh and teacher handbooks and um syllabuses um that are. These surveys are given to students without the parents knowledge in school about the lifestyle politics of the parents, their health, the child's professor, gender, et cetera. These kinds of uh questions are being harvested from these schools uh by contractors. And obviously um the Missouri AG thinks that is illegal. And then we've got Biden uh going to Saudi Arabia and okaying. European sales of oil by Venezuela uh and not dropping any new leases here in the United States.

Speaker B: Uh mine must have got a tax return from God, because apparently Exxon Mobile makes more than God.

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker C: And in our own state, the first thing DeWine did when he became governor was push for an increase in the gasoline tax. Where's our tax relief? Gov. Uh hey, Gov like other States have done, like Georgia. Georgia uh suspended their gas tax to lower the cost per gallon for their.

Speaker B: Citizens to be at least $0.50. Probably Ohio at least.

Speaker C: Yeah. Oh, it is. Ohio is higher than the national average right now. The national average is 501, roughly. And Ohio is at like 509. You can eat off our roads. Come on, they're good.

Speaker A: Well, this may not be a nugget. It's worthy of comment and then maybe even further discussion as it unfolds. But recordings now have emerged of Hunter Biden uh discussing on tape how his dad will do whatever he wants. His dad believes in the same causes. Basically what he was saying is I can get my dad to get on board with any causes I think is important because he thinks I'm important.

Speaker C: Um the big guy.

Speaker A: The big guy.

Speaker C: Right.

Speaker A: And he was talking about his dad.

Speaker C: And.

Speaker A: This is a recording. This is on your tape. Now, there's always context before and after, but that's what I heard. That's pretty damning stuff. Again, not in mainstream media, anywhere near the cabin. It's sort of down in the bottom right hand corner, page 30 with Kavanaugh.

Speaker C: Well, when Jim Jordan is running the House after this uh election this fall, I'm sure there's going uh to be Hunter Biden hearings and possibly an impeachment.

Speaker A: Of Biden, and I'm uh not for that, but.

Speaker C: Well, either way, let's hear the evidence.

Speaker A: Well, hear uh the evidence.

Speaker C: But, I mean, they impeach Trump for a phone call.

Speaker A: Uh yeah, I get it. That doesn't make a stupid impeachment of Biden anymore viable. That's true in the stuff they're talking about buying. If it's new, if it's novel, if it's ongoing, I'll listen. But if it's about something that happened four years ago, well, it is what it is. All right. Well, with that, we're going to wrap up Lawyer talk roundtable. Always the wrap up announcements. If you want your own podcast, you call Brad uh over at Circle 270 Media. Send us an email at Channel 500 and uh one.com or go to our website. You'll see a way to send us a request for happy birthday, Jared and Jared.

Speaker C: Um happy birthday.

Speaker B: Happy birthday.

Speaker A: Happy birthday.

Speaker C: Good.

Speaker B: He can be celebrating.

Speaker A: So if you want your podcast, get your podcast. We'll get your podcast down right here. It's sort of like Bill Cosby's picture pages for those who remember that?

Speaker C: Oh, my God bill Cosby. Uh time to get your picture page.

Speaker A: Time to get your craze in your pencil Cosby.

Speaker C: For God's sake.

Speaker A: Uh anyway so we'll wrap it up with that this has been lawyer talk Round uh table edition taking on the toughest topics, providing the greatest insight, the most intellectually honest insight of anyone across the globe. You heard it here right here at lawyer talk roundtable off the record on the at least until now.