0:08

Now it's Red Eye Radio.

0:11

Gary McNamara and Eric Harley talk

0:13

about everything from politics to social

0:15

issues and news of the day.

0:17

Whether you're up late or you're

0:20

just starting your day, welcome to

0:22

the show from the UNIDAN America

0:24

Studios. This is

0:27

Red Eye Radio. It's

0:36

Red Eye Radio. He is Eric Harley and

0:38

I'm Gary McNamara. Around the universe we are.

0:40

We're everywhere, we're everywhere. Good

0:43

morning, thanks for being here.

0:45

Merry Christmas everybody. Merry Christmas.

0:47

Interesting day, yesterday. I

0:50

will tell you this, now I wake up

0:52

a couple hours before the show begins

0:54

and got to drive into work, get ready

0:56

and everything else. I was not able to read the

1:00

entire decision from the Colorado

1:02

Supreme Court. During

1:05

the show, because it's 133 pages,

1:09

and during the show, during breaks, I've

1:11

done what I call my

1:13

speed scanning, where I

1:15

can scan over it. Now that isn't good

1:17

enough for me because I'd like to go through everything

1:19

and there are people that I respect. For

1:22

example, Jonathan Turley who's reviewed it and said,

1:24

no, this is a horrible decision, it's a

1:26

wrong decision and this is on the

1:29

decision to keep Trump off the ballot. But

1:32

a couple things I want to say on it, but the first

1:34

thing is you get to

1:37

the end of it, because one of

1:39

the things we saw, we were reading the

1:41

national review article earlier that had

1:43

said, uh oh, just destroyed

1:45

the Supreme Court's, Chris's vacation. No,

1:48

they didn't. Well, they

1:50

will have to make a decision on whether they are

1:54

going to review it. Right,

1:56

but I was under the impression that

1:58

they would have to come to a decision. by

2:02

January 5th and they do not as

2:06

they right here but we stay

2:08

our ruling until January 4th 2024

2:10

the day before the secretary's deadline

2:13

to certify the content of the

2:15

presidential primary ballot if review is

2:18

sought in the Supreme Court. Not

2:22

a decision, not a stay, but

2:25

if a review is sought by the Supreme

2:27

Court before the stay

2:29

expires it shall

2:31

remain in place and the secretary will continue

2:33

to be required to include President Trump's name

2:35

on the 2024 presidential primary

2:37

ballot until the receipt of any

2:40

order or mandate from the

2:42

Supreme Court. So the

2:44

Supreme Court reviews it. It's

2:47

okay we're gonna review it. Yeah

2:49

yeah yeah this is a case we basically know the

2:51

case we're gonna review it boom and of course this

2:54

is a case that they would review. Yeah yeah

2:59

then I guess

3:01

what is the

3:03

what might be the push from

3:06

the Trump legal team to expedite

3:10

it and not have it sit there.

3:13

I mean he's still gonna be on the ballot because

3:15

they can't at that point they can't do anything because

3:17

this is a this is a review the Supreme Court

3:19

reviews it that you're it's not it's

3:21

not where both sides aren't going

3:23

to argue this before the Supreme Court. Hmm

3:28

okay. This isn't one of those

3:30

cases where you go in and you

3:34

you basically review it you say nope sorry this

3:36

is bogus. Right

3:39

there won't be a. Now maybe they

3:41

may allow you to put

3:44

in your briefs both

3:46

sides put in their briefs but

3:48

it's not like you have a Supreme Court hearing or

3:51

like on an I would think

3:53

now I could be wrong they might be able to

3:55

do whatever they want to do. Well

4:00

review implies then they're just looking at the

4:02

case and how it was presented there

4:06

at the state level. This isn't a case, this isn't

4:08

the kind of case you would put on the docket

4:10

and say we're going to hear it in October. Right.

4:15

They're fast-tracking this to the Supreme Court. Now

4:19

the Supreme Court may want to hear what

4:21

both what the other side because the one

4:23

they may want to take up the review

4:25

before the official you know the primary

4:30

season officially begins. You know

4:34

I mean that that would just be a decision by the... Well

4:36

yeah they may make a

4:38

very quick decision on this because

4:40

you're exactly right because they don't want other states

4:42

to be following down this this

4:44

same path but what it seems to be

4:46

here and again this is just from my

4:49

scanning review of everything and

4:51

and even taking out other people that we

4:53

have played that have commented on it just

4:55

what I got out of it it

4:58

seems as if they're number one they're

5:00

not talking about the behavior of

5:03

insurrection which again it's an

5:05

insurrection. Yeah they seem to be attempting

5:07

to redefine it as things

5:09

that were said by

5:12

Trump in the past that had

5:14

nothing to do with the

5:16

elect the you know January 6

5:20

wasn't set on that day might have been

5:22

set a month or two before basically we're

5:24

gonna fight this thing till the end and

5:27

since the riot happened they're tying the two

5:29

together and saying that's insurrection that's an insurrection.

5:31

Right. That's gonna get blown out of this.

5:33

If if I'm correct in

5:35

my analysis of again that broad stroke

5:37

of it this would get blown out

5:40

very quickly because

5:44

they haven't talked about any type of action

5:46

of insurrection where you've taken up arms

5:49

that's what insurrection actually is or you're

5:52

involved in the conspiracy you know

5:54

because if you look at the 14th amendment this

5:57

is about Confederate soldiers Confederate

5:59

that are generals, that

6:02

had a conspiracy against, you know,

6:04

the United States and the Civil

6:06

War was viewed from the North

6:08

and when we got back together that

6:10

the South, that

6:13

was an insurrection against the United States. They

6:15

went to war with the United States. Right.

6:19

I don't think the Supreme Court is going to look at this. They

6:22

may have a decision on it. You

6:28

may have them come down and blow this out before

6:33

Christmas, just

6:38

because of the urgency of the primary season

6:40

coming on and other lawsuits that might be

6:42

filed in blue states just to stop it

6:44

now. This foolish thing. I

6:46

would, I would think that would

6:48

be of great concern to get it, get

6:53

the decision there done before

6:56

it officially, we officially get into 24.

7:02

So if not by Christmas, then in

7:04

the days after Christmas sometime next

7:06

week. But to

7:10

me, the urgency is real. Stacking

7:13

Benjamins with Joe and his good friend

7:15

OG not only has great financial insight,

7:17

it's laid back with humor too. Joe

7:20

talks with stacking deeds co-host Crystal

7:22

Hammond. I've always been a fan of

7:24

nosy neighbors. I want nosy neighbors. They can tell

7:26

you what's going on 10 times faster than you

7:29

would know. Again, what's she

7:31

talking about? We're repairing

7:33

neighborhoods, but then we're into nosy neighbors

7:35

and find out more by searching the

7:39

stacking Benjamins podcast wherever you

7:41

listen. Get an inside

7:44

look at Hollywood with Michael Rosenbaum. Let's get

7:46

inside of my father, John Glover. You know,

7:48

we've watched talk. And most of these episodes

7:50

I never saw. I didn't watch the show.

7:52

You never once saw yourself on Smallville. In

7:54

the beginning, I used to look at myself

7:56

all the time and love to. And then

7:58

as I get older, I stopped. Why

8:00

is that? I don't know. Maybe because I'm older. I

8:02

was going to talk to you about that because you're

8:04

79. Yeah. How old do you feel? 11. Inside

8:07

of you with Michael Rosenbaum. Wherever you

8:09

listen. We're

8:14

talking about, you know, something again,

8:17

this isn't where he

8:19

was found guilty of breaking

8:23

an election law in Colorado. Wasn't

8:25

charged with anything. Nope. The

8:27

lower court judge actually came up with this

8:30

whole insurrection. She just applied it and said

8:32

it was true. There was no

8:35

conviction. No charges. That's

8:37

for insurrection. I want to make sure there were

8:40

charges not insurrection. No charge of

8:42

insurrection. So just citing

8:44

it. And saying

8:46

you believe it rises to that. That's

8:50

interesting enough. And again, I have

8:52

gone through it's impossible to go through everything on

8:54

X, but the people that are supporting this

8:56

are saying a court of law

8:59

said it was an insurrection. That's all that

9:01

matters. States run the federal elections and that's

9:03

all that matters. It's over. It's done. That's

9:05

not how it runs. They didn't decide. It

9:07

wasn't he was charged with insurrection or,

9:12

you know, which would have had that wouldn't have

9:14

been a Colorado charge. I mean,

9:16

you know, if there was an event in Colorado that,

9:18

you know, that would have been different. No,

9:21

that would have been a federal charge. Right.

9:23

But their point they're making is the state

9:25

court, and it's a wrong

9:27

opinion, but what they're saying is the state

9:29

court made the determination based on the facts

9:32

that they have that it is an insurrection.

9:34

Therefore it stands because elections are run through

9:36

the states and it doesn't. And that's all.

9:39

And that's the legal system work. No, and

9:41

the legal system doesn't work where you can

9:43

make it. You can make any type of

9:45

court case and that

9:48

federal rights. Aren't

9:50

challenged as they're going to

9:53

be challenged now. Right. And one of the federal

9:55

rights is the right to run for office and

9:58

the right for the people. in a

10:01

state to actually vote for it and

10:03

not have unelected bureaucrats decide what

10:05

the population can do. So there's

10:08

a host of federal issues here.

10:10

I mean, that was, but that

10:12

seemed to be the talking points

10:14

that went out because I saw

10:17

numerous people on

10:19

social media posting that exact same thing.

10:21

And I went, let's bogus argument. Well,

10:25

and Dan McLaughlin, who writes at

10:28

the National Review, his

10:30

headline, Colorado Grinches Run, the Supreme

10:33

Court's Christmas, he writes

10:36

that, you know, it doesn't mean necessarily

10:38

that the High Court, that SCOTUS, will

10:40

end up deciding whether

10:42

Trump engaged in insurrection.

10:46

And that's true because they

10:48

don't have to. All they have to do is say, okay,

10:50

does that even apply? Was

10:52

he charged with insurrection? Oh, I agree with

10:54

that. No, no. How did it come to

10:56

the point of insurrection being

10:58

cited as the reason, you

11:01

know, under the 14th

11:03

Amendment as him being

11:05

disqualified for being on the ballot in Colorado?

11:08

And that's a great point. We may

11:10

not get to that point with SCOTUS. In

11:13

fact, you know, they don't have to. They just have to

11:15

look at it and say, oh, was

11:18

he charged anywhere, convicted,

11:20

even charged with insurrection? And

11:23

the answer is no. And

11:25

that – and I

11:28

think you can't get too

11:30

complicated. I think that's what you're doing on what the

11:32

Supreme Court might do, which is

11:34

we're not going to – it's not

11:36

up to us to decide whether he

11:38

committed insurrection. That's up to a court

11:41

of law, which is

11:43

you're being tried. And the other mistake

11:45

that the left's making is this is

11:47

a court of law as if Trump

11:49

has basically been found guilty of insurrection

11:52

by a court, which he has not. And

11:54

they're trying to make the case that the

11:56

Supreme Court of Colorado – Exactly. And

11:59

it's not the same thing. That was the point I was

12:01

trying to make earlier. And because

12:04

they imply, because a judge said it,

12:06

he was found guilty of it. Right,

12:08

no. No, no, and I think you

12:10

may be right. I think the Supreme

12:12

Court simply may come back and go,

12:15

we have no idea what they're talking about. There

12:17

is no charge of insurrection that

12:20

the federal government has gone after Trump

12:22

for. If there is

12:24

no charge, and

12:26

they're charging him with other things, but

12:28

insurrection is not part of the charges,

12:32

it implies that there is no evidence.

12:36

Otherwise the prosecution, they've been bringing,

12:39

I can see them writing in, the

12:41

prosecutors, special counsels have brought lots

12:43

of charges, none are insurrection. So

12:46

the insurrection is your opinion that

12:48

he's guilty of insurrection, not in

12:50

a court of law where

12:53

he has been found even charged or

12:55

been found guilty, we throw it out.

12:57

I can see it being just a

12:59

paragraph. It may not be

13:01

extremely long. Well, no, it

13:03

could be where they make

13:05

quick work of it, saying he was

13:09

never charged with insurrection, much

13:11

less found guilty of insurrection. So

13:16

the basis for the

13:18

decision is completely flawed. And

13:23

I mean thoroughly flawed, therefore we

13:25

strike it down. Or

13:29

they may come out of left field with something we haven't even

13:31

thought of yet because it's so new. Yeah,

13:33

I guess, yeah. You just, you never know

13:35

what they might come, which might make sense,

13:38

we just haven't thought of it. Right.

13:40

Yet because we don't do that for

13:43

a living. Because courts

13:45

don't get to just decide, well,

13:47

you're guilty when you haven't been

13:49

charged with something. No. They

13:52

can find you in contempt, a

13:54

judge has that kind of power

13:57

and contempt of court. Yeah,

14:00

these aren't criminal judges. No. And

14:03

so... They don't get to make that, you know... And,

14:05

you know, if that had been the case, if he

14:07

had been charged, you know, it would have been

14:09

a federal charge. But if

14:12

they would have said, well, that federal charge in

14:16

our state, according to our state

14:18

voting laws, then

14:21

it disqualifies him

14:24

from being on the ballot. You know,

14:26

but it may be... It

14:28

could even be simpler. You

14:31

don't have jurisdiction to make this call. You're a state

14:33

court. Yeah. No.

14:40

This is federal jurisdiction. I don't know.

14:43

I'm just throwing that out. I don't know. Again,

14:45

but it may be a lot simpler. And I

14:47

told you during the top of the

14:49

hour, I said, it's almost the way they wrote

14:51

it is if they know this is

14:53

going to be overturned. No, they... It's...

14:56

I really think they... It

14:58

looks like they kind of just

15:01

threw it out there because they

15:05

granted a stay that

15:07

nobody asked for. Yeah.

15:09

I haven't been able to read the full dissent yet.

15:11

So... Yeah. They're

15:14

three-descented. Right. It's going to be

15:16

very interesting to read the dissent on it. Yeah.

15:18

Because it was a 4-3 decision. Yeah.

15:21

Right. 86690, red-eye. This

15:24

morning's USDA Farm Report is brought to

15:26

you by Howl's Products. Tested,

15:28

trusted, guaranteed since 1920.

15:32

Over the next few days, lots of people will be throwing

15:34

lots of parties all the way from huge

15:37

blowout bashes down to small dinner

15:39

parties. Now, we do have a

15:41

dog or cat either type party

15:43

and even just the extra holiday

15:46

commotion and all. It can

15:48

be stressful for our pet. Kansas State University

15:50

veterinarian Dr. Susan Nelson says some pets love

15:52

it. Strangers get really stressed out. If

15:54

your dog or your cat is

15:56

not comfortable with strangers and other people in

15:58

the house, should probably be shut

16:01

up in a back room. Dogs maybe in

16:03

their crate during the party time. That way

16:05

they'll be less stressed and not in the

16:07

midst of everything. If you can't do that

16:09

or you don't think it'll work, check ahead

16:11

of time with your vet. There's herbal supplements

16:14

that can be safe and effective for mild

16:16

stress to help with that. And then for

16:18

ones who really get stressed and bothered, we

16:20

can even look at some prescription medications if

16:22

needed over the holidays. Which will relieve your

16:25

pet's stress and your stress too as

16:27

pet owner and party host. Gary Crawford

16:29

for the US Department of Agriculture, Washington.

16:31

This report brought to you by Sennex

16:33

Fuels and Loops. Wind

16:36

open for your calls. 866-90

16:39

RED-EYE on RED-EYE radio. It's

17:01

RED-EYE radio. He's our Carly and

17:03

I'm Gary McNamara. Good

17:06

morning. You know, one of the things that I

17:08

saw here that was an issue

17:10

of concern, but it really is

17:12

inaccurate. And I saw it in a number of articles,

17:15

and I'm trying to figure out whether it was Associated Press who

17:17

wrote it. I'm looking at this one here

17:19

that came from Yahoo. But

17:22

I've read it in a number of articles. It said, state

17:24

officials said the issue must be settled by January

17:27

5th. They didn't say that. No,

17:31

you make a good point. What they said

17:33

was that the state

17:35

will be extended if they decide,

17:38

you know, if the high court

17:40

decides to review it. Right. And

17:44

they said whatever way it

17:46

goes at that point, then the state would follow

17:48

what the Supreme Court said. Right.

17:53

Either way. But if a review is there, Trump's

17:55

name stays on. Right. Almost

17:59

every article. I read, stated that

18:01

in the mainstream media. State

18:03

officials said the issue must be settled because that

18:05

was a concern with them at the Supreme Court.

18:07

This is Chris' vacation, what are they gonna do?

18:10

Who do they settle an issue by then? And

18:13

we just said, okay, then they just, the Supreme Court

18:15

comes in and says, we don't care what you're saying,

18:17

there's a stay. Right. But

18:19

that's not what was in the actual,

18:22

and I had seen that one, I had seen

18:24

a few people write, well, wait a minute, that

18:27

isn't true. And then when I was

18:29

reading it, I found that section myself that said no.

18:33

Yeah. The Supreme Court does not have to

18:35

make a decision or even put a stay in, as long

18:37

as they agree to review it. No

18:39

matter what their eventual outcome may be, well,

18:42

then Trump stays on the ballot. Okay. From

18:45

PBS, Colorado officials say the issue

18:47

must be, it's not

18:50

the court, but I guess election officials,

18:52

officials there in Colorado, must be settled

18:54

by January 5th, the deadline for the

18:56

state to print its presidential primary ballots.

19:01

Right. And that's not true. The

19:06

issue does not have to be settled. Well,

19:08

not according to the state's highest court, they're

19:10

saying that the stay would be continued. And

19:13

that's what I'm saying. By the time that they

19:16

go to print the ballots, January

19:18

5th, if the stay is still in place,

19:22

the printed ballots will have his name on it.

19:24

Right. But they said the issue

19:26

must be settled and the issue

19:28

is in settled. That's where I was

19:30

thrown off and said, I can see, you know, the Supreme

19:32

Court then is gonna put a stay on. Well, the question

19:34

would be, what if the high court,

19:37

I don't think this is gonna happen. What if the high

19:39

court said, look, we will throw it back down to the

19:41

lower court there. You know, it's

19:43

a state issue. It's a, the

19:46

states control their elections, blah, blah,

19:48

blah. And it stayed in place,

19:52

the decision by the state

19:55

Supreme Court, but they've already

19:58

printed the ballots January 5th. with

20:01

his name on it. I don't understand what

20:03

you're saying. If

20:05

the decision came from the high court

20:07

after January 5th but state

20:09

officials printed the ballots with his name

20:12

on it, which would

20:14

mean he wasn't eligible

20:16

for the ballot because they

20:18

say January 5th is the deadline. Right,

20:20

they will remove it, is

20:24

what they stated in the thing. They'll

20:27

have to go back and remove it. Right, they go

20:29

back and remove it. Yeah. Okay, all right. That's what

20:31

it was clear. You're

21:00

listening to Red Eye Radio

21:02

from the Unit and America

21:04

Studios. And

21:06

he is Eric Carley and I'm Gary McNamara. One

21:08

note we should make here that the

21:11

Colorado Supreme Court, the

21:14

decision was four to three. People

21:18

should know the entire Supreme Court

21:20

is Democrat. Yeah. So

21:23

three of the

21:26

dissenters were all

21:28

Democrats. Fox News has

21:31

this article that just came

21:33

out here in the last, well, a

21:36

couple hours or so I'm going to guess. Let me

21:38

just see here. Just

21:41

in the last hour. They

21:45

talked to, let me just

21:47

see here, get to it here, Chris

21:51

Landau, former law clerk for

21:54

Supreme Court justices Clarence Thomas and

21:58

the late Justice Scalia. Leah

22:00

declared the Colorado decision lawfare

22:03

by the left, trying

22:05

every potential lever to prevent a second

22:07

Trump presidency. Quote, I hope

22:09

everybody's irony meters are just going

22:12

off the charts tonight because this

22:15

is one of the most anti-democratic

22:17

decisions we have seen

22:19

in American history that

22:21

four unelected judges on a

22:24

state Supreme Court have taken

22:26

it upon themselves to disqualify

22:28

someone who meets

22:30

all the qualifications of

22:33

the Constitution to run for president. Landau

22:36

said he is however confident that

22:39

the Supreme Court will take one look at

22:42

Colorado's case and overturn it.

22:46

It is terrifying to me as

22:48

an American that this kind

22:50

of lawfare is being waged, that

22:52

courts are so presumptuous

22:56

that they think it's up to them to decide

22:58

who can be on the ballot to

23:01

let democracy work. He

23:05

added that any jurist is

23:07

free to dislike Trump, but

23:10

their opinions should not

23:12

result in landmark rulings of

23:15

this magnitude. Why

23:18

are these people so terrified that

23:21

they're bending all the rules to

23:24

get Trump off the ballot? Let

23:26

the people vote. Well.

23:31

As we talked earlier and we played some audio, George

23:35

Washington University Law Professor Jonathan

23:38

Turley took a similar tact,

23:40

calling the ruling strikingly undemocratic,

23:43

adding that the court

23:45

took the broadest possible

23:47

legally speaking interpretation of the law

23:49

and the Constitution to make the

23:52

decision. Turley

23:55

said January 6th was an abhorrent day

23:58

and that those who committed crime should

24:00

be prosecuted. However,

24:03

Turley argued January 6th should not

24:05

be seen as an event

24:07

with the utility of

24:09

disqualifying a presidential candidate

24:11

and creating a legal slippery

24:14

slope for every other

24:16

state where cases are pending or

24:18

will be brought. This

24:20

is a time when we actually need

24:22

democracy. We need to allow the voters

24:24

to vote. We need to

24:26

hear their decision. The court

24:29

here just said, you're not going

24:31

to get that, Colorado. In

24:37

the end, some of Trump's fellow

24:40

Republican presidential candidates appeared to stand

24:42

in solidarity with him, including

24:44

those who have been routinely critical

24:46

of his campaign. Rahma

24:49

Swamy pledged to remove himself

24:52

from Colorado's primary ballot

24:54

and called on all candidates to join

24:56

him in doing so, saying the court's

24:58

ruling is what

25:00

an actual attack on democracy looks like. By the

25:02

way, he is correct on that. In

25:08

an un-American, unconstitutional,

25:11

and unprecedented decision,

25:15

Democrat judges are barring Trump from the

25:17

ballot in Colorado, having tried every trick

25:19

in the book to eliminate President Trump

25:22

from running this election. The bipartisan

25:24

establishment is now deploying a new

25:27

tactic to bar him from ever

25:29

holding office again, Rahma Swamy

25:31

said from Iowa. Chris

25:33

Christie, who made criticizing

25:37

Trump a hallmark on his

25:39

campaign, was asked at a town hall

25:41

meeting about it. He replied

25:43

he had yet to read the court's rulings,

25:45

but said the courts should not be the

25:47

ones to prevent Trump from winning the presidency.

25:49

The voters should. He also tweeted that out

25:52

later on. Also

25:54

DeSantis came out against what was going

25:56

on also. Said

25:59

the same thing. Yeah, I haven't heard anything from

26:01

Nikki Haley. Did you? I

26:05

did not see anything unless it came

26:07

out like in the last hour. But

26:13

look, this

26:18

is the leftist game. Think about this.

26:20

When you step back and

26:23

still include the decision from the High

26:25

Court of Colorado, but

26:28

look at the entire equation, you've

26:32

got to think about it. But wait a minute. This

26:36

is the court just

26:38

finding him guilty because the court says

26:41

so. He

26:43

hasn't been found or charged

26:46

with insurrection, let

26:51

alone found guilty. But because we say

26:53

so. Nobody's even made

26:55

the argument connecting the

26:58

dots to insurrection. Well, and that's the

27:00

thing. Not even the January 6th.

27:02

They say it in the media. They're using

27:04

it. Late night comedians are using it. In

27:08

the legal setting, who

27:11

on the left was brave enough to move

27:13

on insurrection? Oh, that's right. Nobody. I

27:16

mean, the bogus January 6th

27:18

committee. But it's bogus.

27:22

But when you look at

27:24

the, here's my question. If

27:26

you see this as a victory, if you're on

27:29

the left and you see this as a victory,

27:32

this decision out of Colorado, do

27:35

you have to be asking yourself why no one

27:38

else, no

27:40

one else came at Trump on insurrection legally?

27:44

This entire time. Because

27:47

you couldn't connect the dots. Because there's nothing

27:49

there. And that's my

27:52

whole point, is that where

27:55

all the other states here? Well,

27:58

now, I mean, if this decision works. to hold.

28:00

It's I don't think it's going to. Oh my

28:03

gosh. What

28:08

state couldn't come at what candidate

28:10

and say sorry we think you

28:12

did this you

28:14

can't be on the ballot. Nikki

28:17

Haley did speak on it on it she said

28:19

we don't need to have judges making these decisions we

28:21

need voters to be making these decisions so I want

28:24

to see this in the hands of the voters we're

28:27

going to win this the right way. All right.

28:31

Were? Oh is

28:33

she gonna run with Trump? Did

28:36

you hear Tucker Carlson say that he

28:38

won't he won't will not

28:40

vote for Trump if Trump makes Haley the

28:42

vice president. Did you hear

28:45

the chatter on social

28:47

media that it should be Tucker Carlson

28:51

not Nikki Haley not coming

28:53

from Tucker Carlson. Oh yes yes Tucker

28:56

Carlson who lambasted Trump

28:58

yeah you know and not just

29:01

because Trump he I don't forget when he

29:03

tried when he tried to back

29:05

off but he blasted Trump and said

29:07

oh yeah the last four years have

29:09

been basically a waste right that he's

29:11

sick and tired of Trump and a

29:13

blankety blankety blank these people and it's

29:16

funny thing is truth the Trump supporters

29:18

have completely forgotten about he completely went

29:20

against everything that Trump said that was

29:22

part of the major reason for the

29:24

lawsuit mm-hmm is what but but we

29:26

had said early on because

29:28

Tucker Carlson did say at the same time

29:31

well the day after we said it that

29:34

something's going on that and this is

29:36

when Sidney Powell was blown

29:39

out mm-hmm you know from

29:41

the campaign yeah yeah

29:43

and and by the way before somebody calls Sidney Paul

29:45

never worked for the campaign yes she did yes

29:48

she did both sides

29:50

said they did yeah they were covering their

29:52

posterior right when she was on

29:54

stage with them she was working for them

29:56

if she's on stage and he introduces everybody

29:59

on stage as my legal counsel and you're

30:01

a lawyer, you're a part of it. Yep.

30:05

Yeah, there's no way around it. And

30:11

so, but, or is it,

30:14

is that the same Tucker Carlson, the one

30:16

who blasted Trump, or is it the one

30:18

who? Apologized

30:22

and moved on and. No, no, no, no,

30:24

no, no. Who got, who believes. And got

30:26

forgiveness from. No,

30:28

who believes there's extraterrestrials. Oh,

30:31

no, that one. Look,

30:35

I have nothing against Tucker Carlson at all. I just,

30:37

like everybody, we judge them by the things that they

30:40

say and do. That's it. Well, I

30:42

have no personal feeling towards any of, any

30:44

of these people. I don't know who they are. I

30:47

simply look at what they say,

30:49

observe what they say and said, does it match what they're

30:51

saying now? And also for me,

30:53

it's, you know,

30:55

the chatter about these dream tickets. Yeah,

30:58

I know. You know, how

31:03

about I have one, how about

31:06

Trump and Kid

31:08

Rock? How

31:11

about Trump

31:13

and Romney? That

31:17

one. There's a

31:19

better chance being Trump and Kid Rock. How

31:23

about Trump and Roseanne? She's

31:25

been one of his biggest campaigners. By

31:30

the way, you do hear the sarcasm in my voice.

31:33

I just don't, you know, I don't, maybe

31:36

it's just me. Maybe you love it. I

31:38

don't like Roseanne Barr trying

31:41

to explain the principles that I believe in.

31:47

People who were there say she appeared

31:49

to be inebriated. Yeah, exactly. That

31:51

was good. Yeah.

31:57

Not a good look. Look, the next

31:59

time Trump. as a rally, let her come in and

32:01

sing the Star Spangled Banner. I

32:04

wonder how many people don't even know that. How

32:06

many young, I bet you a ton of Trump

32:08

supporters have no idea. I think it was for

32:10

the San Diego Padres, was it? Where she

32:12

sang the Star Spangled Banner that time?

32:14

Then grabbed her crotch and spit. My

32:17

gosh, was that controversial at the time

32:19

when that happened? Yeah. True conservative, right?

32:23

Yeah. But

32:26

the point we made on the rally thing is

32:29

Trump, you're the celebrity. You don't need

32:31

celebrities. Yeah, we said that already. You

32:34

don't need celebrity endorsements. You

32:36

are the celebrity endorsement. I'm

32:40

Donald Trump, and I endorse Donald Trump. If

32:43

he could get that

32:45

singer that tailors something.

32:50

I don't know. That wouldn't be too swift. I

32:58

just don't think it would be. Maybe

33:02

her boyfriend. Well, just maybe

33:05

Chip Roy will speak at the next rally.

33:07

Hey. That

33:10

Tom, what's his name? The football player. He's

33:12

not doing anything. Remember

33:17

that whole thing that came down? Was he wearing

33:19

a hat? Well, what

33:21

was he doing? Remember the fury?

33:24

And did Belichick say that he liked Trump too?

33:27

Don't remember if he did. Yeah.

33:32

Yeah, but Trump doesn't want Belichick now. He's a

33:34

loser. Yeah, yeah. He's

33:36

not winning anymore. So yeah. Go

33:45

learn to coach again. I could hear

33:47

Trump saying that. Go learn to coach again. Belichick's

33:50

going to be out. He nerds.

33:53

He needs to learn to code. Yeah. All

33:55

right. Right. Hi. Get

33:59

in touch with. Radio toll free

34:01

at 866-90R. In

34:21

Trudy Radio, he's Eric Harley and I'm Gary

34:23

McNamara. A conservative

34:26

policy group has filed an

34:28

ethics complaint against Supreme Court

34:30

Justice Jackson for

34:32

willfully omitting required

34:35

income disclosures for

34:37

years while serving on the federal

34:39

bench. The Center for Renewing

34:42

America, a think tank led by

34:44

former senior Trump White House officer,

34:47

uh, official, excuse me,

34:49

Russ Vaught sent a letter to

34:52

the judicial conference with allegations

34:55

that Jackson willfully failed

34:57

to disclose required information

35:00

about her husband's malpractice

35:02

consulting income for more

35:04

than 10 years. The

35:08

letter suggests that the judicial

35:10

conference should refer Jackson's possible

35:12

ethics violation to Attorney General

35:14

Merrick Garland for investigation and

35:17

possible civil enforcement.

35:21

Jackson responded by

35:23

saying, I'm not an economist. I

35:25

don't know what income is. We're

35:29

just learning that I

35:32

think what we're learning here Gary

35:34

is that income is

35:38

money that you receive. I

35:42

don't, we're going

35:45

to have analysts looking at this throughout

35:47

the day. We're going to review this as

35:51

we learn more about

35:53

that here at CNBC. I

35:56

like the time to CNBC. That's

35:58

right. People

36:01

care about prices. I was sort of trying

36:03

to reference her

36:06

saying she's not a biologist. So she can't define what a

36:08

woman is. At first where

36:10

I went, and of course that applies

36:12

too. Hey.

36:18

There's a lot that the left doesn't know. I

36:20

don't know what a woman is. I

36:25

don't know. So how can you expect me

36:27

to know what income is? She

36:31

was trying to sell the American... because we've talked about this for

36:33

the last couple of days. Democrats are

36:36

plain stupid now. Well Supreme

36:38

Court Justice Jackson did at

36:41

her confirmation hearing when she said she

36:43

couldn't define what a woman is. We all knew

36:46

she was lying. She has a lot in common

36:48

with... She's really stupid. She has a lot in

36:50

common with Steve Leisman. They don't

36:52

know a lot about anything. Thank you. Former

37:07

Navy SEAL Mike Ritland keeps it real

37:09

on the Mike Drop Podcast. He's the

37:11

co-CEO of the All Secure Foundation, which

37:13

assists special operations and active duty combat

37:15

vets. Tom Satterly. Nobody helped you shoot

37:17

your gun. They trained you how to

37:20

shoot your weapon. So we're going to

37:22

train you on the things you've never

37:24

been trained for, how to come home

37:26

from war, everything else that turns people

37:28

away from it. We try to rebrand

37:30

it, reduce or dismiss the kind of

37:32

stigma that's associated with it. You have

37:34

to. Mike Drop. Raw. Unfiltered. Intellectually sound.

37:36

Wherever you listen. For the

37:38

real story behind some of wrestling's biggest

37:40

moments, it's something to wrestle with Bruce

37:43

Prichard and Conrad Thompson too. 1995

37:45

when WCW announced that they're going to be live

37:47

and head to head with Monday Night Raw. Feels

37:49

like this would have been something Vince would have

37:51

kind of laughed off. No, we did not like

37:53

them moving to Monday Nights. There were a lot

37:56

of hotels. They all carried CNN, TBS and TNT.

37:58

Vince was convinced that Ted Turner had... We've obviously

38:00

done this deal to get in the

38:02

hotels and keep us out. Something to

38:04

wrestle wherever you listen.