Trump's Intelligence Picks - Doozies and Russian Assets

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:00:00 Clip: You must never, ever give up or give in. You must keep the faith and keep your eyes on the prize. That is your calling. That is you mission. That is moral obligation. That is mandate. Get out there and do it. Get in the way. Change happens because people care. The people have the power to make this life free and beautiful. To make this live a wonderful adventure.

0:00:38 Clip: I still believe with all my heart, America can be a place where no child is left hungry, no community is left behind, and no one gets told they don't belong. Country is always worth it.

0:00:57 Thomas: Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments. This is episode 1095. I'm your host Thomas Smith and that over there is real -life attorney Lydia Smith. Wait a minute.

0:01:05 Lydia: Not a lawyer don't put that on me three

0:01:08 Thomas: It's Lydia because it's FashWatch. It's Trump's staph infection number four, I want to say. S at least four. That guy gets a lot of staph infections.

0:01:14 Lydia: Four it is four yeah

0:01:17 Thomas: He's kind of gross.

0:01:17 Lydia: He needs to go see somebody about that yeah

0:01:20 Thomas: Yeah, probably it's all the hair plugs or something. How's it going today?

0:01:24 Lydia: Going okay uh have some doozies today for you all um that's like the best way I could describe it, like, honestly.

0:01:33 Thomas: Is appointing a bunch of doozies. Such a delightfully old -timey way of putting it.

0:01:41 Lydia: That's me, old -timey Lydia.

0:01:42 Thomas: Doozy watch. Here we go.

0:01:45 Lydia: Yeah, no, today we're going to clue in on what Project 2025 categorized as the common defense. So we're gonna be talking about the various folks that Trump is appointing to defense positions, intelligence community community position. So we have, you the the who are going to have the nuclear codes. So, you big deal.

0:02:05 Thomas: Let's get to these doozies but first let's take a short break and please support the show patreon.com/law so we can keep bringing you that doozy analysis that yeah happens because of the support of amazing patrons and and after doozy watch we're gonna do another doozy of a t3b question uh basically doing double episode wednesdays um there's just that much going on and I hope everyone enjoys it please support the show at patreon.com/law so later on we'll also have heather for uh a bar question, see how I do. Yeah. Right, let's take a break and then get over to these doozies.

0:02:16 Lydia: You've all come to know and love. Yes. Oh, my God. This Heather.

0:02:46 Thomas: Doozy number one.

0:02:49 Lydia: Well, want I to set the stage a little bit it. And I won't go into Project 2025 too but we are going to, as we talk about each of the different areas of the common defense, we will talk about the priorities that were outlined in Project 2025. But I want to set the stage with Agenda 47, which is, again, Trump's platform, quote unquote, when he said, I don't even know what Project 2025 is. This is my agenda and put it up on his website. So this is what Trump is focused on with regard to the military and American defense. World War III, restore peace in Europe and in the Middle East, and build a great Iron Dome missile defense shield over our entire country, all made in America. So was the bullet point. The only other item mentioned in all of Agenda 47, which is like a few pages long, it's not long at all. It says Republicans will ensure our military is the most modern lethal and powerful force in the world we will invest in cutting -edge research and advanced technologies including an iron dome missile defense shield support our troops with higher pay and get woke left -wing democrats fired as soon as possible yeah

0:03:55 Thomas: What is that? That's kind of out of nowhere.

0:03:57 Lydia: Um

0:03:58 Thomas: Sure feels like they're around the table and all these 12 year olds are coming. Let's have a, let's have a missile defense shield. Be awesome. And let's get the woke left out of here. Okay, yeah, let's put that in too.

0:04:04 Lydia: I know well because israel right yeah yeah well

0:04:10 Thomas: Jetpacks. Everyone gets a jetpack.

0:04:13 Lydia: Actually been a lot of hearings um Congress regarding, you quote unquote, woke left wing ideology in the military, right, because of the focus on DEI. And, you of folks in the right wing are like, the enemy doesn't care what color you are, what race you are what religion you are what your pronouns are, bullets or bullets, they're shooting at you regardless kind of thing. And they don't see like what the purpose of diversity is in a military.

0:04:37 Thomas: What does that statement mean? I don't get it. Must be assuming we're like putting a bunch of people of different colors in the army and then they're like look stop doing that because the enemy doesn't care what color but it doesn't make any sense like Like could see us being like, hey, let's diversify the army. By the way, the enemy doesn't care what color you are. There's just bullets like that. You know what I mean? Like we could be saying I don't I'm not understanding how they get to that. Like I know that it's bigotry, but I'm trying to figure out the logic of what that even means for them. It's

0:05:10 Lydia: So if you go to the clip I just sent you, this is Representative Mike Waltz, who we'll be talking about in a second, because he was nominated for a Trump cabinet position. Here he is talking talking about DEI in the military in a House Oversight Committee hearing.

0:05:27 Clip: The video is an expert today, a democratic witness, diversity, equity, inclusion is part of every, there's a DDI office in the Pentagon, the chief of the DDI, and many, many, you don't know what equity, you can't testify to what equity means, well I'll tell you since you don' know. Thank you Congressman. It is equal outcomes for all, which is a hallmark of Marxism.

0:05:36 Thomas: They have a they have a Robin DiAngelo quote up behind him. No, that's not what that means.

0:05:51 Clip: DEI is Marxist -based, as is critical race theory, but let's progress since, I mean, apparently the expert doesn't know what equity is in DEI.

0:06:00 Lydia: So rude.

0:06:01 Clip: I have here, I'd like to enter for the record, a class composition with racial goals for West Point. You just testified. You were under oath. You were in the admissions office. I was in the admissions office. I was on the admissions committee for one year, and I know that there were no quotas, is what I said, Congressman. So we're going to parse over quotas and goals. This is from the superintendent and here's the goals and it has african -americans hispanics asians women with percentages we have red here for when they miss those goals that's as I said there are no quotas um we're not on the admissions committee there were no let's also there's also congressmen of the ability to have athletes on there so there are many other the goals on there as I'm sure you've seen on one of the other if you could go read all of those goals it would tell you how how deep that is in fact the largest number of people that are recruited at westbrook are athletes 25 here's the problem when you have a in an inelite institution when you say and your directive is to advance one group based on in the skin color you have to take those slots from another group based on their skin color zero sum but the largest of those groups is the athletes it's a zero sum or the athletes get broken down by their skin colour in this chart 25 % in this short that you just said doesn't exist but let's continue this is my time here just to

0:06:22 Thomas: Yeah, it's kind of a different thing. And here's the goals.

0:07:35 Lydia: Really the focus, right? That they're saying at West Point, you know, there are these expectations for admission. So the woke -ification of the military is starting with education, with we're talking about young folks that are entering into West Point for training and schooling and all of those things. On in in that hearing, he kind of went after this witness about aren't West Point cadets learning like aren't they being trained in critical race theory? The witness said And they were like, well, there's critical race theory 101. And there isn't. Yeah. Yeah, so there there is a portion of one class, which is an elective like part of the class. There is a critical race theory component to it. But it's yeah, yeah, but it's entirely an electative. Right. Let's talk about Mike Waltz a little bit since we're here. Um, has been nominated as the national security advisor. Is a representative from Florida. So he's leaving the house in order to take this position. Uh, he was a Colonel in the army, a green beret. He touts a lot that, you know, he's the first green berets elected to Congress. He Um, was awarded four bronze stars. He served in the Bush administration in the the Pentagon, and then he was also Dick Cheney's counterterrorism advisor. Sister -in -law, here's some of the fun facts. His sister-in-law is the nominee for the Surgeon General. That's his wife's sister. And his wife was the Homeland Security Advisor in the previous Trump administration, a position that Stephen Miller will be taking on in this administration, And which we'll be talking with Matt about pretty soon. Yeah. Then I just stumbled on this like very strange fact because I saw that his wife another had another sister with a different last name. And I was like, oh, I wonder who she's married to. And looked it up. And it's the lead singer from Creed. Scott

0:08:05 Thomas: No way there's critical race theory 101. I'm surprised that's even true. Scott

0:09:20 Lydia: Stapp.

0:09:20 Thomas: Stapp?

0:09:20 Lydia: Yeah, yeah. So Mike Waltz. Yes, I'm 100% positive. Yeah Mike Waltz's brother-in-law is Scott Stapp. So. I know.

0:09:29 Thomas: You sure? Can we get him in there? Just.

0:09:31 Lydia: I know with arms wide open. Yeah. Yeah oh man

0:09:37 Thomas: He can be the secretary of. With arms wide open and uh we got kind of a junior level position can you take me higher sorry

0:09:41 Lydia: It's so good um yeah oh boy yeah I can't I I just like want to bring those memes to life now like that's I'm sure Mike Waltz is not expecting it. But but But seriousness, with regard to how Project 2025 imagines this position as the national security advisor, this the National Security Advisor is a of the National Security Council and Project 2025 wants them to rigor review all general and flag officer promotions to prioritize the core roles and responsibilities of the military over social engineering and non -defense matters, including climate change, critical race theory, manufactured extremism, and other polarizing policies that weaken our armed forces and discourage our nation's finest men and women from enlisting to serve in defense of our liberty.

0:10:33 Thomas: Change what can you translate that for me what

0:10:37 Lydia: So I think the climate change piece of it is they and they've been talking about this. I watched things on Rumble, you guys, like Rumble's

0:10:44 Thomas: Is rumble what what has happened to my wife they have a youtube is the right wing youtube you don't need a right right -wing YouTube. It's already there.

0:10:49 Lydia: Like the right wing YouTube. No, Rumble is even worse. So yeah um I I watched all these things and

0:11:01 Thomas: It's the right - wing 4chan? Like, what?

0:11:03 Lydia: I know this is the overton window right like this is what's happened to our country um specifically like what I can kind of connect the climate change concern to is that um biden administration and right now I just have like I have not had a chance to deep dive into specifically what they're calling to do I just have the right wing talking points. But they're saying and they want electric tanks. Part of Mike Waltz's speech, part of Michael's speech at the RNC this year was, you know, calling out the electric tanks and saying, like, been you to the Middle East, they don't have a lot of charging stations out there, you guys. And I was like, what?

0:11:26 Thomas: First off, that would be awesome. But they do have tank filling stations.

0:11:41 Lydia: Yeah. Also, they have the sun, like a lot a lot of sun.

0:11:43 Thomas: But we bring, like, when you go to, like, militarily occupy a place, you're not like, hey, just call in ahead. Uh, Iraq? Yeah.

0:11:51 Lydia: What are the lodging accommodations?

0:11:55 Thomas: We're about to invade, how many beds you got? Uh,

0:12:00 Lydia: It's very, very dumb. So I think that that's primarily one of the things that they are talking about is also kind of connects with part of Agenda 47, which is this in the electrical vehicle mandate. I do wonder how this will all work out with like Elon having such a prominent, you know, kind of role there and like, his like money. I kind of feel like if it's if Elon says, Hey, you guys, I have a great idea for a tank. All these like Elon sycophants are going to be like, sounds good. Let's do it. And then it's going to to be like Cybertruck 2 .0 and going to like shatter. That bulletproof glass is not gonna be bulletproof. Don't But know. I don'T know how that'll all exactly shake out.

0:12:16 Thomas: It is interesting. Yeah. It's really interesting because I think a lot of this stuff happens without anyone, MAGA really paying attention much, you know. So, but feel like with Trump, when it comes to something, if he feels like his and his core of support wants something that is the opposite of Musk, he'll go with the voters, I think. Unless Elon is really, for some reason, but here's the thing, Trump, unless he's already counting on a 2028 run, it's not like he really needs anything from Elon now. Like he, already got him the election probably, you what more does he need? I curious to see how that relationship evolves and we'll see.

0:13:11 Lydia: My gosh, I know me too. Won't be boring, I guess that's for sure. So who else is going to be serving in that national security role? Mike Waltz, the deputy, I guess, national security advisor is going to be this man named Alex Wong. He was also involved in Trump's first term. He served as the deputy special representative for North Korea. He actually is by Trump as being the primary person that was able to get the meeting with Kim Jong -un. He is actually very connected. I landed on an and also so like a wedding website with his wife.

0:13:48 Lydia: And it caught my eye. There's a reason.

0:13:50 Thomas: The lead singer of dang, what's the fill in the J.

0:13:54 Lydia: I know. I know. Nickelback. No, I guess.

0:13:57 Thomas: That's even, and somehow you, somehow that was insulting to Nickelback. I don't know how you you accomplished it but somehow you my first thing was like oh that's rough wow you made me be sympathetic to nickelback just

0:14:02 Lydia: Know, I don't know. I went there. Yeah. So, Alex Wong graduated from Harvard Law, and he was very involved with the law review. He served as the editor for a period of time while he was there, probably.

0:14:19 Thomas: Curious who taught him ethics was it alander alander switzer okay huh

0:14:23 Lydia: And then he moved into private practice. And so when I stumbled on this wedding website, caught my eye because it said that his wife, their wedding was officiated by Sandra Day O'Connor. And I was like, what? So apparently he I found out is he met his wife at Harvard Law. They have a cute little story about where they met on campus and stuff and, you know, all these things, whatever. She clerked for Kavanaugh when he was at the appeals court. She clerked for Sandra Day O'Connor. And then I also saw a citation that she clerk for Sotomayor for a little bit, too. I thought that was really interesting. So, yeah, anyway, Anyway, Sandra Day O 'Connor officiated this guy's wedding. They're pretty, you know, well connected between him and his wife. So he'll be in in security matters. Switch gears a little bit and go into the intelligence community.

0:14:53 Thomas: Well I so this is an electric tank we don't need to switch gears attributed

0:15:08 Lydia: Nice. The intelligence community is a separate section of Project 2025's plan. It was written by this guy named Dustin Carmack. Dustin And Carmack was the former chief of staff to John Ratcliffe, who's been nominated for the CIA position. Then he was also the chief of stuff for the director of national intelligence, which is the Tulsi Gabbard nominated position. Position. His career, you between these positions and stuff, it's bookended by time with the Heritage Foundation and the Heritage Action for America, essentially. Most recently, and about this, he was hired at META as the Director of Public Policy in the South. So that is something I think to keep an eye out for a little bit. This person is very deeply involved in the intelligence community and these ideas. Do want to cite a littlebit of what wrote in this, but I also want to, I'm going to go ahead and share his author's note that he put at the end of his chapter. Says that none of this should be attributed to the author or anyone else who helped put it together. It was a group effort, essentially.

0:16:18 Lydia: Yeah. So he wrote at the very end of the chapter that he wrote.

0:16:17 Thomas: To the author look this was a team fascism uh everybody's important here.

0:16:26 Lydia: Is like trying to like obfuscate responsibility for anything that might happen.

0:16:30 Thomas: There's no I in fascism. Well, there, okay, there is, but there's no, there's no me in fascismo.

0:16:35 Lydia: Yeah yeah. The very end of it is just an author's note saying like, hey, I know my name's on this, but no, it says no particular policy statement, reform recommendation, or other view expressed herein should be attributed to any individual contributor or to the author. Then who? But then who?

0:16:51 Thomas: To the author. Yeah, so they did a Ouija board. You can't blame any one of us. All got together and we just, what we did is one person said a word and then the next person said a next word. It's like that improv game.

0:17:06 Lydia: Are some of these specific things? I think let's talk about the CIA first. So I mentioned John Ratcliffe. He is the person who has been nominated for this position. Trump's first term, he was nominated to be the director of national intelligence. But senators, you know, he was a senator at the time. Senators in Congress were hesitant to confirm him because of partisan concerns. He was considered the second most conservative person in all of Congress, House and Senate. Ended up withdrawing his nomination and then Trump appointed Richard Grinnell as acting for a few months. And he was so bad that then they resubmitted John Ratcliffe after and try and, like, you know, get him in that way. Would say pin in that because that could be a tactic we see with some of these other positions. You know, we are going to talk about Pete today. So we'll see. Nominated this time for director of the CIA, folks at the CIA quoted as saying, here's some different quotes, as good as it was going to get, and then relief over alternative names suggested, and it could have been a lot worse.

0:18:10 Thomas: That's what you want to see in your cabinet.

0:18:12 Lydia: So could have been worse.

0:18:13 Thomas: Well, I guess you can form human sentences. So, all right.

0:18:18 Lydia: Biggest thing that I'm seeing in Project 2025's position on the CIA is that the bureaucracy of the CIA has grown too much. There is a lack of accountability that they have issues with resources being too constrained to headquarters. And so they want to kind of like push it out into the field offices and things like that. It's primarily a lot of like personnel management and things of those sources.

0:18:45 Thomas: Yeah. You don't want to stop for a second to make a serious point. And of Trump and what Trump has done, this thing happened where it turned the left into like defenders of the establishment in a way that we haven't really wanted to be. You know, it's like it's a tough line. And I think that when it comes to you and I or most on the left, I know it's not as though we all fell in love with like the CIA or some shit. But like it put us in this position where it's Like, well, okay, but the thing Trump wants to do is insane. Like they want to come in here, demolish all these things, do a bunch of stuff. They just put their doozies, install their doenzies in their Scott's staff and their, you know, various other, yeah, things like that. And, and it's like, it puts us in the awkward position of like, not my CIA. Don't you? It's like I hate the CIA. Like what need to somehow be just like rhetorically also against some of these establishments. We need to do like the left version of it. You know, it's

0:19:39 Thomas: Interesting.

0:19:38 Lydia: The party of change but like

0:19:40 Thomas: Thing

0:19:40 Lydia: A change that actually is safe and reasonable and

0:19:44 Thomas: I imagine their critiques of the cia are gonna be stupid you know maybe not all of them like honestly maybe not All of them maybe they have because like a of these agencies I mean my critique of of all of Them would be that they're hardcore right -wing and abusive and shitty and

0:19:58 Lydia: And they have way too much money is my other yeah yeah of their other objectives, surprise, surprise is redirecting resources for activities that promote unnecessary and distracting social engineering. All about social engineering?

0:20:00 Thomas: Yeah good point and Social engineering. Does that mean like when, you promote a coup in a communist to try to like overthrow their government and then ruin that country?

0:20:23 Lydia: Hmm.

0:20:23 Thomas: And then now there is bunch of displaced people in a civil war and now they're trying to immigrate to us and then we're mad at them for the thing we caused. Is that that kind of social engineering?

0:20:33 Lydia: So is a, you new announcement. Sure you saw Kash Patel is.

0:20:37 Thomas: My God. We need more time on that. We can start the Kash Patel.

0:20:40 Lydia: Let me just do very brief. But yeah, but we're going to need to do a probably like a whole episode.

0:20:46 Thomas: Person's insane. Talk about a doozy. A doozy is too kind a word. He's a walking doozy yeah

0:20:48 Lydia: He is a doozy. So he was a public defender in Florida and then moved into the DOJ in 2014 in the National Security Division as a trial attorney, a there in 2017, he was senior counsel for counterterrorism at the House Intelligence Committee for Devin Nunes. And he is the the primary author of the 2018 memo from Devin Nunes. New York Times wrote, it galvanized President Trump's allies and made Mr. Patel a hero among them. And so shortly after, he was hired in February 2019 as a staffer for the National Security Council. So he's moving up into the White House and then promoted to senior director of the Counterterrorism Directorate. And then in In 2020, he moved into the office of the director of national intelligence and the principal deputy to Richard Grinnell, who we talked about was kind of a failure. .G. Barr, Attorney General Bill Barr, said when Trump had floated his name as potential for FBI director during the first term, Barr said over my dead body. Um and recently Patel released a book called Deep State Gangsters this came out in 2023 and Trump called it a roadmap to end the deep state's reign um I think that's probably something we need to look into like specifically that book yeah

0:21:50 Thomas: Wait yeah we should look into that yeah

0:22:05 Lydia: If it's a roadmap I would like to know what his roadmap is um then simultaneously he also released a A kid's book, or I guess not simultaneously, but around the same time, released a kid's book called The Plot Against the King. And in that book is called Hillary Quinton. So, you know, instead of Clinton, Queen -ton. And Trump is the king.

0:22:08 Thomas: Sorry

0:22:24 Lydia: Guess she must be a queen from a different kingdom. I'm wondering if that's what it is, or she's trying to take him down to become the queen. I don't know.

0:22:23 Thomas: They're married oh this is so weird and dumb this guy every picture you see of him his eyes are open too wide and he's yeah and it's just like oh my god this guy this will say this guy of everybody discussed including scott stapp who I think I think will come through in the position that he's in I think you know and if not you know we will lock him away in his own prison Tristan, but, uh, but I, I think Kash Patel for real is the scariest. That's the first one. Now that, well, okay. Now that we're, we're done with Beavis, you or

0:22:32 Lydia: Yeah, it's very alarming. If the cinematography of his music videos are any testament. Yes,

0:23:09 Thomas: Is it Butthead? I can't remember which I think it's Butthead actually, or no, no, I guess Beavis. I don't know. I haven't seen that since 1992, but uh, like now that we've done with Matt Gates, I mean, I don' terrifying and what what are his chances what are do you know anything about that is there any well

0:23:11 Lydia: I never watched it. Yeah. Man, I don't know because I know how much fight there is against the nominees at this point. Pete Hegseth, it has been, but Pete Hegsteth has not, that's like, going okay. Tommy Tuberville is like, I think he's a good guy, and if the media has problems with him, that'S for him to address with you guys, and that DOESN'T make a difference in how I feel about him.

0:23:38 Thomas: I think it's been pretty healthy I mean we got rid of Matt Gaetz yeah yeah okay so here's the problem it that I had any illusions about I actually you Matt Gaets chances so it's not as though I have any illusions conclusions about the Republicans in the Senate specifically being amazing, but you only need three or four, I want to say four, to defect. Now, but here's my worry. Here's what I think is going on. Matt Gaetz made the crucial error of being the person ever and pissing Congress off. So people in Congress don't like him. And now I'm wondering, is that all it was it wasn't about how unqualified he is it wasn't about what he wanted to do to the DOJ it wasnís about any of the very very good reasons to not put him in there as AG it might have been well we hate him he's pissed us off and if thatís true yeah and if thatís true then maybe someone like Kash Patel if he doesnít have that reputation is going to get through it which which would be devastating. I mean, that would really suck.

0:24:28 Lydia: I think yeah, I think it's everyone hated. Yeah.

0:24:40 Lydia: The worst co -worker of our lives. Yeah Yeah.

0:24:50 Lydia: I'm I mean, here's here's something he has openly said about, you he goes to the FBI, he says, I'd shut down the FBI Hoover building on day one and reopen it the next day as a museum of the deep state. And I take the seven thousand employees employees that that work in that building and send them across America to chase down criminals. Go be cops.

0:25:05 Thomas: That's fine. Well, I don't like that last part.

0:25:11 Lydia: Now, this is really remarkable, though, because David Frum wrote an article for The Atlantic regarding the way that the FBI position usually is right are nominated to serve a term of 10 years. It is not supposed to be a partisan appointment.

0:25:24 Thomas: It's not supposed to be partisan.

0:25:25 Lydia: Yeah. Clinton fired the FBI official when he came in, and it's the first time a president ever fired an FBI director. But it was only because the Bush administration, as they were leaving, they left a DOJ report that showed the director had committed some, you know, pretty significant ethical lapses. And so Clinton took that DOJ support from Bush's DOJ and said, all right, yeah, this guy's got to go. Had tried to get the director to resign, and he said no. And so then when that didn't work, then Clinton fired him at that point.

0:25:54 Thomas: I don' t totally get this idea that to be influenced by the presidency. It' s a 10 -year term, but also the president still can fire him. I guess it just has to be that way because it' S an agency, I suppose, but yeah it's kind of weird yeah

0:26:06 Lydia: I think it's expected that there has to be like, you know, pretty, pretty good reason. At least that has been that has Been the norm. And now that norm is going away. Patel is like one of the most intense Trump loyalists you'll see in the entire cabinet. It. To have him be the director of the FBI is very scary. So

0:26:23 Thomas: So like you're saying I christopher ray should be scheduled to go for another three years or so right and he has not said he'll leave so that's so trump will have to fire him

0:26:37 Lydia: Have to fire him. So we'll leave the FBI for now because I do think it warrants further discussion and analysis. I want to make sure we get to our last couple folks here. Tulsi Gabbard. So I'm you know I'm going to close out the intelligence community section of project 2025 um in project 2025 regarding this position is um again remember this was written by someone who was the chief of staff for dni for the director of national intelligence in the first administration and he says that the um intelligence committee is too fragmented and the dni should really be seen as what he calls the conductor of an orchestra. All intelligence community agencies are under this office, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. And what that means is that Tulsi Gabbard, who has been accused over and over and ever and ever again of being a Russian asset, would be potentially in charge of coordinating all activities of the entire intelligence community. And that is very scary to me as well. I do have a clip on kind Russian asset allegations and stuff.

0:27:46 Thomas: I was gonna say like we're now to the point with tulsi where we have to wish and hope that it's just that she's always been a conservative like we have to just hope that's what's going on and it's not you know that she's a russian asset because it's entirely possible like to get the most tinfoil hat and it's not even tinfoil hat that like russia has gotten to the point where they have small part because of the funding of the entire right-wing media apparatus here is you know funded by by russia have now installed people in our government like in the highest levels of our government that are their asset like that's a scary thought I I hope that's not true I really hope that that's like too paranoid to think you know because oh god

0:28:25 Lydia: I, I hope so. I really, really, really hope so um why don't we go ahead and listen to Megan Kelly and her guest Glenn Greenwald yeah

0:28:36 Thomas: Speaking of russian assets

0:28:38 Clip: Reaction to Trump. In fact, my irreparable breach with the Republican Party came as a result of my immediate contempt for the sole Trump -Russia narrative. I think the last time I was invited to MSNBC was the end of 2016 when I went on to say we need skepticism. These are anonymous leaks coming from the CIA and the FBI and into the Washington Post and the New York Times. We've seen throughout history how often those kinds of narratives that are coming from these agencies to interfere in our politics, given to these two papers, turn out to be completely false. That's how, just as an example, the Iraq War Intelligence was fabricated and disseminated to the American people coming from those agencies, leaked to the Newark Times and the Washington new post that then mindlessly put it on the front page there

0:29:13 Thomas: Sorry. Everything about that is wrong. Everything about... So you think there's some leftist CIA that's like, we're gonna... We don't want Trump. We're gonna leak that there's a Russia thing that, by the way, won't even matter. Apparently, like, why not leak something way more effective than that? Like, why? This is, and also the idea that that's what was his break from the left. Like, is it, was it part of the left party platform that Trump Russia, first off, also the Trump Russia stuff is real. There was a lot of bullshit. Like, don't get me wrong. There's a lot OF fake stuff. Like there was a LOT of like, I did get carried away with some of the stuff, but like, Like, I don't watch MSNBC and a lot of the left doesn't. And like it hasn't being on the left in general has nothing to do with specifically Rachel Maddow's feeling on a Russia thing from 2017. Like, why would that be? What?

0:29:45 Lydia: Make up something way more effective. Yeah and we also have like no evidence that any sources that MSNBC had for any of those stories were the CIA, the FBI, you know, anyone who would know anything. Like it could just be a congressional staffer.

0:30:33 Thomas: I feel like this guy is a Russian stooge. Like this guy, I Don't know what it look. Look, it could be a few things with him because he very curious situation with his. I think he's still married to him, but predatory situation with this current husband. Was a lot older and the husband was under 18 when they met.

0:30:51 Lydia: I did not know that. That is very uncomfortable.

0:30:53 Thomas: They tell a story of it that tries to sanitize it. I think that there's a couple possibilities with this asshole.

0:31:00 Lydia: No, his husband died.

0:31:02 Thomas: When did his husband die?

0:31:02 Lydia: Yeah it's May 2023. 23. David Miranda. Yeah.

0:31:06 Thomas: Didn't know that I haven't covered this since before then oh wow what did he die of oh

0:31:12 Lydia: Infection and then he had a series of successive infections, including a case of sepsis. Died a day before his birthday.

0:31:17 Thomas: That's horrible well that's horrible I did not know that um I covered this before then and it's a thing that um Greenwald and he would he would argue with people like online like in Twitter fights and stuff about this because people would be like hey that was super weird how you met your husband and like it seems like he was underage when you started and and all this stuff and it wouldn't surprise me if that again we've seen this time and time again where people um things that are kind of morally objectionable then gravitate toward the right where no one gives a shit you know and so I wasn't sure if it was that I wasn'T sure if it was the um think everybody'S a russian asset but we do have solid proof that russia is paying right -wing media figures we don'T we know it it'S a real thing and like this guy is pretty inexplicable you know like he started off he was a lefty I like don't know there's also the narcissism component

0:31:58 Lydia: That has come out. Yeah uh -huh. Has Dave Rubin though, right? So So never.

0:32:10 Thomas: Dave rubin wasn't really ever left he just I think he just said he was there but there's also the narcissism component too because people who are narcissists I an tendency to gravitate toward being being smarter than whatever group you're around you know and then you then then there becomes this like hatred of the left that they feed into and it becomes about triggering the left and it becomes about you know it's like it's all this unhealthy stuff my point is sorry idea that because some people maybe got carried away with russia in 2017 something that was ultimately true therefore I'm no longer on the left well how how do you feel about healthcare? How do you feel about taxes? How did you feel like corporations? How'd you feel about every

0:32:49 Lydia: How do you feel about your your rights as a gay man?

0:32:51 Thomas: Single, yeah, every single issue. Now he doesn't even live in America anymore, I don't think. Well, unless, well, if his husband died, I don't know if he moved back, but like has nothing to do with anything. This is, it's such a weak position to take. You're just taking a position in reaction. It's reactionary, in reaction to something you're mad at. But anyway, sorry, I stopped the clip.

0:33:10 Clip: Could be skeptics and I said there's no evidence that trump and colluded with vladimir putin or the russians to happen to these emails why would they need trump to do that there's just no evidence for it but there's a hysteria around it and of course I said that on ground zero for the cesarea but what also really bothered me was the fact that it you know I'm somebody who received a civil libertarian background if I describe my politics I would describe it that way first and foremost and the one of the civil libertarian night years in the 20th century was the McCarthy era where he may have been correct that there were communist infiltrators in the government but he was constantly accusing people of being that and destroying their lives and reputations with no evidence and he just he he accused a lot of people for whom it was not true that they were in leave with the Kremlin or agents for the Russians and it reminded me exactly of that sort of climate when the Hillary Clinton campaign first launched this with this ad that had this like very menacing baritone like what is donald trump and the russians what do they have in common what are they doing in secret and I was like this is mccarthyism like just the script the rotted

0:34:16 Clip: Script from the battle of the cia you know rejuvenated very

0:34:16 Thomas: My god this person is either off by the Russians or the dumbest fucking idiot that has ever are you kidding me with this the left is the one doing the McCarthyism they're literally doing everybody's woke we gotta rid the military we're in this very episode we gotta rib the military of the woke they're everywhere where are they yeah we got the congressman being like Like you're the equity. What does that mean? We don't, how many people are in here because of the woke and because of the D it's like, are you kidding me? You fucking idiot. Thing about these gay men who go hard, right? Like Like, this asshole and like Dave Rubin and, and a number of of other ones actually, is that it is just such a stupid move. Like it's, it's you're five minutes away from having no rights as a gay man, you know, like

0:34:38 Lydia: Go after the press. Go After the journalists. Yeah Yeah. Yeah

0:35:09 Thomas: This idea that you're going to team up with the fascist, you Christo nationalist team, because you're mad at the left about something. Then you're gonna be fine. Like, Oh, yeah, well, I my rights are solid, because I got them five minutes ago from a Supreme Court that just happened to give them to me. That definitely doesn't exist anymore. That court doesn't exist anymore? The idea that you think you're in good standing. I mean, it's the same thing when Dave Rubin got harassed about his adoption by his entire fan base. It's like, yeah, I felt a little bad, but also, you're That's what happens when you back fascists. That's who they are. Anyway, sorry, this is this guy. So, no, but I mean this in all sincerity. This is either the stupidest person I've ever seen or a Russian asset like there's no other this is this is such a line of weak bullshit still haven't even gotten to tulsi what

0:36:00 Clip: Dangerous because the Russians have the hardest nuclear stockpile in the world and they're all based on these OK systems we all we both have many many any intercontinental ballistic missiles into one another's city to create this environment where no one can ever talk to the Russians, understand their point of view, or get accused of being treasonous or a Russian agent is so dangerous on top of journalistically baseless.

0:36:20 Thomas: This is so obviously Russian propaganda.

0:36:23 Lydia: Ridiculous.

0:36:26 Clip: And then to take Tulsi Gabbard, all people who, I have some foreign policy disagreements with her, I've got to know her very well. She's somebody who has devoted her life to fighting for her country.

0:36:34 Thomas: Weird why have you gotten to know her very well yeah

0:36:37 Lydia: All the Russia meetings.

0:36:38 Clip: And a big reason why she came to dislike these intelligence services was because she went to Iraq and fought there when Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden and George Washington Cheney were sending her there and came to realize that she was sent there on false pretenses. But she stayed in the army. She's in the Army Reserves as Lieutenant Colonel to this day. Imagine being her and hearing all these people who constantly cheered for wars like Hillary Clinton but never went and fought in them, questioning her patriotism and her royalties by fabricating this claim that she's a Russian asset. And if you ask, if you listen to any of these interviews where they call her that, the one thing that is missing, always, because they never get pushed back, it's just assumed that she is that, so if you say it, nobody asks you for evidence or reason, is any basis whatsoever for accusing her of being that. It's just an accusation that is deemed acceptable and true, but no evidence is required. Wait,

0:37:32 Lydia: I some thoughts about, you know, Tulsi Gabbard's nomination is interesting. So Tom Nichols wrote for The Atlantic just a couple of weeks ago that I have no idea why Trump nominated Gabbard. She's been a supporter, but she hasn't been central to his campaign, and he owes her very little. For someone as grubbly transactional as Trump, it's not an appointment that makes much sense. It's possible that Trump hates the intelligence community, which he blames for many of his first -term troubles, so much that Gabbard is his revenge. Or maybe he just likes the way she handles herself on television. But Trump could also be engaging in a ploy to bring in someone else. He may suspect that Gabbard is unconfirmable by the Senate.

0:37:37 Thomas: What why would she be unconfirmable by the senate she's like of all the people that we've talked about she's got to be one of the most confirmable.

0:38:11 Lydia: Don't know, maybe these Russia things. I don't really know where he's getting this exactly. Tom Nichols.

0:38:19 Thomas: Writing this? That again?

0:38:22 Lydia: Writer for the Atlantic.

0:38:23 Thomas: Atlantic. I like some of the writers for The Atlantic is he in the transphobia division or okay.

0:38:26 Lydia: He's written a lot of stuff. -uh. No no. As far as I know.

0:38:32 Thomas: So I don't like any of that. I think so. We covered the New York rally. She was there at the New York rally she's none these people are central to Trump's win. It's not like he owes those.

0:38:43 Lydia: Rem. I'm just kidding. Trump's best friend David Rem him I'm waiting I'm I'm waiting for his appointment

0:38:50 Thomas: Took me a second. You need everyone, please, if you haven't listened to where there's woke. Eli Bosnick came as It was the funniest thing that ever happened. It was part, what was it? Part three, two, three. I don't remember.

0:39:00 Lydia: It's really funny three three

0:39:03 Thomas: Just listen to all those. That was the best thing to ever happen. That was a really good joke. It took me like a a minute. Um, so yeah, Trump likes how she looks on TV. She also triggers the libs a lot because she quote unquote used to be.

0:39:09 Lydia: Used

0:39:17 Thomas: Yeah.

0:39:17 Lydia: Be one of them yeah

0:39:17 Thomas: And, and so I, you 40 chest that it's going to be somebody else to me is insane. Like not understand why she would be unconfirmable but she's also had these positions for a long time. It's not just some some you know principled thing about the Iraq war like her stuff about Syria was always very bizarre and it was always exactly what Russia would have wanted and it's very odd so more on that another time perhaps because we are way over time

0:39:17 Lydia: Hawaii Yeah. About Assad. Mm hmm. Yeah. Way over. And yeah, we didn't even get into the Department of Defense. We're going to have to do that another time because Pete Hegseth is is a whole as a whole doozy, doozy and a half.

0:39:53 Thomas: I was just gonna say more doozies to come each

0:39:57 Lydia: Yeah. And there's a lot in Project 2025 regarding the Department of Defense?

0:39:59 Thomas: Doozy more doozyful than the last well that's been yeah that's all we've had time it's It's actually more than we had time for here on fast doozy watch, uh, Trump staff infection volume four. Thanks so much, Lydia. Really appreciate the work.

0:40:03 Lydia: Time flew. Doozy watch. Thanks for having me.

0:40:13 Thomas: Why don't we, can you just remind us since we took a journey, who, who did we cover? What positions did we covered?

0:40:19 Lydia: Right. Today we focused on the community. So we talked about the National Security Advisor who Mike Waltz was appointed to that role and his deputy, Alex Wong, the one that Sandra Day O'Connor officiated his wedding. Mike Waltz, of course, is Scott Stapp's brother-in-law. Needs no introduction. We also talked a little bit about John Ratcliffe, who was nominated for the director of the CIA. And we did kind of a brief talk about Kash Patel as director of the FBI.

0:40:47 Lydia: We'll revisit that one. And then we closed out with Tulsi Gabbard, nominated to be the director of national intelligence slash the conductor of the orchestra, according to Project 2025.

0:40:58 Thomas: That was a lot to try to cover. And that's why I have this feeling that we need to do several more deep dives on each of these people. So we'll see how it, goes. How um thanks so much and at least I'm looking forward to whatever scott stapp gets into you know I'm gonna follow that it's my main takeaway from this and uh we'll see you again soon for a fashion watch actually we're gonna see you for patron shout outs I'm announcing it now I'm tired of doing these by myself lovely wife lydia smith star researcher and fashion watcher is going to to join us for the patron shout outs later yeah

0:41:15 Lydia: Very soon. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. People lover, patron lover. That's me. To join.

0:41:35 Clip: I just know, that you are gonna kick that bar's butt, out of here, you know, No.

0:41:40 Thomas: Heather how are you doing this week

0:41:42 Heather: I didn't steal anybody's 1970 Dodge Charger so I'm doing doing pretty good. How are you?

0:41:46 Thomas: Sounds very specific I'm starting to think she did everybody I think maybe she did do that I didn't steal something why you said that did I say you said did you have a lovely Thanksgiving and

0:41:59 Heather: Yes, full of turkey and mashed potatoes to walk.

0:42:02 Thomas: Why she had to steal the car she was too full to walk I don't know all right well um I would I have a heavy personal interest in not getting yet another question wrong so if there's anything the universe can do I'd appreciate it but let's have our question remind us what was it what are we talking about it

0:42:19 Heather: Our friend Chris was walking down the street and he noticed this beautiful 1970 Dodge Charger was unlocked and running. Unfortunately, there's a gentleman named Vince and he had left his car running while he was going into his house to grab his gun. And unfortunately Chris was going in to steal the car and saw that happening. And so so he took a shot at Chris. So we're trying to figure out whether not Vince can successfully assert the defense of property to justify his shooting Chris, because Chris sustained some injuries when Vince shot at him. And foremost, you identified this as a criminal law question, and you were correct. This This is a criminal law question, especially for that reason that you identified. Anytime you have a charge or something like aggravated battery, that's exactly puts us in the criminal law portion. So we were there. We'll narrow it down a little bit even further. And part of the great part of starting with the call of the question is that it tells us a lot of good information. It says convince successfully assert defensive property. Defensive property tells us right away that not only are we in the defense's portion of criminal law, which covers a lot of topics, but we're in the defensive property section. So if you're somebody and you know the rules exactly for defensive property, then this question was likely a breeze. It came really quickly to you because it allowed you to narrow down really quickly. You don't know those rules, that's okay. We'll walk through them today and we'll make this question make sense. So

0:43:39 Thomas: You're some kind of idiot podcaster who doesn't know those rules well stay tuned see what happened okay

0:43:45 Heather: Generally speaking, there's two types of force that kind of come up when we're talking about this sort of stuff. It's deadly force and non -deadly force. And I like to think that it makes sense what those two things are. But oftentimes when it comes to the law, sometimes what it sounds like will just just make it make sense. So for sake, deadly force is anything that's intended or likely to cause serious bodily harm or death. And non -deadly force is anything resulting in death or injury or that's intended to cause those things. So here, what's the thing that our friend Vince, what does Vince go to grab?

0:44:16 Heather: That's right. That's what he does. So we're in the deadly force category. We just want to keep that in mind as we're were working.

0:44:15 Thomas: Death weapon but

0:44:24 Heather: That's our question.

0:44:23 Thomas: We are in america so maybe he grabbed a freedom stick so I don't know maybe it's hard to say maybe he just wanted to increase the freedom of the person I don' know

0:44:33 Heather: It Freedom sounds like from what he did with the freedom stick, that it did fall into the deadly weapon category.

0:44:36 Thomas: Deadly dose of freedom.

0:44:41 Heather: Well throughout our history, I it's fair to say that has freedom been deadly. I hope I'm not overstepping there.

0:44:48 Thomas: Somebody from the car they're stealing, I guess.

0:44:51 Heather: A eliminated the answer choice A pretty quickly, which was was that no, Vince was negligent in leaving the car running. For me always when I see this kind of language in a criminal law question, it doesn't mean that there's not a criminal negligence because that does kind of come up. It was, to me, it was not a good way for him to assert a defense, right? Well, I'm negligent. Therefore, it's going to justify my shooting.

0:45:12 Thomas: I tried to channel you on this one. How did I do? Because it's the negligence language, different thing. We're not in that territory.

0:45:19 Heather: I you did great. This is a great, yeah. So you eliminated this answer choice for the right reason, right. A, wrong answer choice, we can get rid of it. You also looked at answer choice C, which was yes, because Vince warned Chris before using force against him. You started talking a little bit about warning. You remind me a little bit about why warning seemed like maybe an attractive answer choice?

0:45:23 Thomas: Fantastic. Well, it's hard to say. I don't know the rules here, but identified two things about AnswerC. C for one, it's the warning. Sure. That sounds like kind of a police thing, but I also could see it being a person thing maybe, but it said using force instead of deadly force. So C sort of like, it seemed like it was treating it as though there was no distinction between force and deadly force, and so I, it ultimately was my second chance because maybe there isn't a distinction between forced and deadly forced in this context. Sounds like you've already said there is, so at the very least, it seems like C is wrong for that reason, but of course didn't know that at the time, but

0:46:14 Heather: Well, and that's exactly, that's part of it. The other part is that for warning to hit on the warning piece, there's no requirement that there has to be a warning. Using force, at in this particular context. There's no, hey, by the way, I'm going to be shooting you. So that's part of why this, yeah. Heads up, your freedom is coming. None of that. Sorry.

0:46:28 Thomas: Heads up.

0:46:37 Heather: Andso that's why C is wrong as well. So we can eliminate A and C. C. now we're left with B and D. we'll start with talking about our answer choice D. Yes because Vince reasonably believed the Chris was g oing to steal car. Reasonable belief does come up when we're we're talking about defenses, because oftentimes the person that asserts the defense has to reasonably believe that they're under unlawful attack, right? So then they can use reasonable force to protect themselves or maybe the other person that they are protecting, right, if they're asserting self -defense. A lot of times when they're trying to raise a defense, the defense that they re trying to rise, again, it has to be a reasonable belief. I reasonably believe I'm being attacked. And also that that force has to be proportional, right? That's part of why we talk about non -deadly.

0:47:22 Thomas: Gotta steal his car fine god we both have each other's other we cars we just traded

0:47:28 Heather: We sometimes too where we're talking about the types of force, the deadly versus non - deadly force, right. So for example, if someone's throwing a punch at me, and then instead I pick up a gun, that's not a proportional use of force when it it comes to self -defense, right? Then that can be problematic when you're talking about how do I justify that self -defence? So that's part of where this issue comes up around reasonable belief and force, right. That is part of what this is coming up at in this answer choice. So Vince does have to reasonably believe, right, we do have this issue around property that made a really good point about whether or not it was appropriate for an individual versus, let's say, the police to use deadly force when when protecting personal property. And we have a 1970 Dodge Charger. So although I'm sure Vince believes that it is his actual baby, it's not. It's personal property, right? To what you were saying before, right, actually a rule that tells us that when you have personal property, the rule is that you cannot use deadly force.

0:48:36 Heather: Yes, exactly. So Thomas, you're right. B B is the correct answer.

0:48:38 Thomas: I got one wrong. Oh, my God. Holy crap. It has been 10 ,000 years. It has ben. Do you want to know the last time I got a question right, folks? It's been a month and a half. I haven't gotten a question. Right. Since if my spreadsheet is correct, October 9th.

0:49:00 Thomas: It feels so good. It feels good to finally get a job. I finally got a ride. I got one ride. Oh, thank God. Thank God. What a bad streak. That was a long national nightmare is over. Thank you so much, everybody. Know what's even crazier? That puts me at exactly 60%. 27 out of 45. Holy shit. Maybe I should just quit. All right, everybody, it's been fun. I'm at exactly 70%. It's never going to get any better than this. Going to sell that stock while it's high. Oh, anything else to say on this? But yeah, that makes sense. No deadly force when it's just a car, especially a, you know, shitty car from the 70s. Some car person is going to be like, that's actually a great car. I don't care. It's a car. I don'T care about cars. Sorry. It's not a thing I understand or care about. Goes real fast because it's electric. So you can accelerate real fast. That's all. That's the most I know about cars, I I actually do know how to change the oil of a car doesn't matter. My cars don't have oil because they're electric. Trick. Anyway, you should not kill anyone over a piece of shit car from the 70s or even a good car.

0:50:01 Thomas: Anything more to be said about that?

0:50:04 Heather: I was just going to say, I really appreciated what you were saying and how you reasoned your way into B about the use of deadly versus non -deadly force for personal property. So I thought that, and especially as you started to talk about that versus how that might be different when it comes to a home, like real property, that that was really important. You like nailed it. So I think that's a good answer. I thought you did a great job. So yep, that B is answer. Being a great.

0:50:24 Thomas: That was fun. Let's do this again sometime. Although I am quitting forever, but no, let's do it next week. We're it's time to pick our winners. And I got to confess. I think it's because of the holiday and because of that two -parter with Abdi we did last week. We had a miscommunication, so it wasn't posted on Blue Sky. So, yeah, yeah. Sorry about that. It was a hectic week. So the T3BE is going to have to come from Reddit. We're going to look at Reddit to see who our big winner of T3B is this week. Got some, in fact, two people who incorporated something funny into their answer that we're going to reference. So, OOWM says, as someone whose high school diploma says Texas across the top, but who has long since fled, the answer is B, unless Chris, Vince, and the Dodge Charger are all in Texas. Bonus points if it's at night. I know this because Texas is the only state that allows the use of deadly force to protect property. Texas Penal Code 9 .42 or 9 .43 for the added use of Deadly Force to protect someone else's property. Oh, God. And it is just one of those, ooh, aren't we special things that people like to bring up in political discussions in any other state? No can do. Yeah, that makes you especially shitty in my opinion. Like, why would, and think this person agrees, like, why Would We Want to Defend Property with Lethal Force? I don't understand. It's a mentality that I can't get behind. But yeah, that's Texas for you. And then someone else says, fact pattern didn't say this happened in Texas, so be. B. Yeah. It looks like pretty much everybody got B, which it always makes me feel better when I finally get one right and then everyone else did as well. So that

0:50:40 Heather: My goodness. Yay.

0:51:59 Thomas: Means that that was a no -brainer that I definitely, definitely got. But it ended my streak of getting them wrong, which is important. So thanks to Big Winner OOWM and Bukowskified. Then we had one player on Patreon .com slash law. Law. I want to shout out Dorcas Malarcus, but, uh, they didn't get it right, but they did say while D is most likely the personal wet dream of three of the nine Supreme court justices. I choose C because we Americans love guns, but the founders had a sense of fairness. Uh, so not quite right. So I don't know what that, what that means exactly in terms of your wet dreams re or in terms of the wet dreams of the Supreme court. Uh leave that aside, but sorry, Dorcas didn't to get it right. Hey, this week, we're going to make sure we post all the things in the right place. And it also won't be Thanksgiving. That was also, I think, a reason why the participation was a little different. So sorry about that. But yeah, congrats to the big winners. And now it's time for another question, Heather. So why don'T we that question number 50. milestone. Here we go.

0:52:56 Heather: Had a lot of turkey on the brain. The recent rainstorms, Thomas watched unhappily as the gutters on his house broke loose and toppled to the ground. Thomas moved the broken pieces to the curb, his neighbor Matthew saw what happened and offered to put them back together and reinstall them for $1 ,500. Thomas said that he wanted to consult with his wife Lydia first.

0:53:21 Thomas: Wait a minute.

0:53:24 Heather: After talking with Lydia, he waited until Matthew walked by again again a month later and said, quote, I would gladly accept your kind offer to put my gutters back together and reinstall them. When can you begin? Replied, I'm busy. You should call a professional. Has a contract been formed between Thomas and Matthew? No, because the offer had lapsed. B, no because Matthew is not a merchant. C, yes, because Matthew did not state a time period for accepting the offer.

0:53:42 Thomas: Great. Huh.

0:53:51 Heather: Or D, yes because consulting with Lydia was not a rejection. Direction.

0:53:57 Thomas: So who in this question is very handy. I do not know if the real Matt is handy. Not sure, were. He offers to put my gutters together and reinstall them for $1 ,500. I say that I want to consult with Lydia first. After talking with Lydia, I wait till Matthew walked by again a month later and said, I would gladly accept your kind offer to put my gutter's back together and re -install them. When can you begin? I'm busy. You should call professional, Matt says. Has a contract been formed? Oh, it's contract question. So this is contracts. I think I can do that. This is, oh man, these are always so tricky. What are those elements of contract? It's offer, acceptance. Or oh is that anything okay here we go so we need to have we you know we got detrimental reliance we don't have that don't think that's a factor here so if he offered to put them back together and reinstall them for 1500 and I didn't accept I said okay gotta talk with lydia and then a month later and matt put no time period on it a month later I said I accept oh man this is this is gonna be a tough one yep think when it comes to contracts, I mean, if you do something and you have a price and the person accepts, I think you have a contract, but then there's going to be the time period question. So let's see. I'm going to have to puzzle this out from the answers. No, because the offer had lapsed. Okay. If gives no deadline on the offer, there a time limit just by default? And would it be less than a month? Because it says this was a month later. A I do remember statute of frauds. You can't have an oral contract that lasts more than... Well, but that's a contract. It can't be more than a year or whatever. That has to be in writing. But this is a slightly different concept, I'm realizing. That's not a contract about something that's going to happen a year later it's a con it's just the difference between the offer and the acceptance so does a does an offer expire automatically when you haven't put an expiration on it and furthermore would that expiration be less than a month so no because the offer had lapsed I don't I don' t know I mean I'll leave that for now? B, no, because Matthew is not a merchant. I don't think that matters. Maybe there's some obscure, weird rule that will make that matter, but I don' t think there's a difference between being a merchant and not. Well, gosh, maybe there will be some obscure thing. Now that I said that, it would make sense that there could be a difference between like, like, yeah, hi, I'm the gutters business. Here's my bid. It's 1500. It feels like, okay, I accept then that should be that. If it's just a guy, is there a different standard? It's just somebody who's like, ah, I do you this favor for this, man, that actually could be true. This is hard because all these could plausibly be true I have. My instinct was no on B just because like, don't remember any different set of rules there in all my time for merchants versus not. And what what would constitute a merchant? So, I think ultimately no, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's like some sneaky correct answer. C, yes, because Matthew did not state a time period for accepting the offer. So, as in there is a contract because Matt didn't put a time limit on it. I mean, that's plausible. Yes because consulting with Lydia was not a rejection. Perfection oh so would be the better reasoning there that's very interesting you wondering about C because it says yes because Matthew did not state a time period for accepting the offer that so I was doing the math that that means because he didn't put a time period on it it's still good forever or for some period of time so yeah C is still alive I think did not stay to time period but there's something about it that bothers me because it's not really because Matthew did not state a time period. It's more like because okay. There's something about the language of C that bothers me. I think it's because it's Not quite causally the right thing. Like I've gotten into trouble with this a few times with the bar where it's like, the reason that it's a contract is not because he did not stay to time period. It's because accepted the offer. That's why. And have still been good because there wasn't a time period, but it's like that indirect, it's one step removed. And so I worry that that's the bar being a little tricky there. Yes, because consulting with Lydia was not a rejection. So, because D, I'm worried that like D maybe actually makes more sense, but even that doesn't make sense because that's under the logic that like it's, it's a contract because it wasn't rejected at first, which also could be right. Ah this is so hard come up with reasons why every single one of these answers is right this is tough so a because the offer had lapsed that's like the least likely honestly because usually in the law whenever there's like a default length of time it's not usually under a month I know that's a weird thing to say but like I would be surprised if it's like oh yeah if you you don't stipulate a time period then it's seven days or something like that you know it's it's not usually that short suppose I I could see it being 30 days maybe but think a is the least likely so I'm gonna eliminate a now watch that be the the answer it is I mean it's possible it's so possible that there's some like period of lapsing that is very short um I I could see being true B no, because Matthew is not a merchant. I could see that being some, I, I could see that Being true because it's like, you understand it differently, you know, like it, it won't come across as an official offer for a contract because it's just some guy that's like a, I can help you reinstall these for 1500. I'm tempted by that answer C yes, because Matt, you did not state a time period for accepting the offer could be totally true because like, otherwise it didn't lapse essentially. So you had the offer and then Thomas accepts and being it didn'T lapse, but it also, I just don't love the language of that one. And D yes, because consulting with Lydia was not a rejection is also sort of like the same answer kind of. Cause it's like, that's what worries me about C and D is that they're They're sort of the same, like ultimately, ultimately, answer for C &D is both. Is a contract because Thomas accepted it, but then it's just explaining like different elements of it that aren't really that's what we're I feel like I'm not putting it the right words. But if the logic is it's still valid because there was no time period set then d is would also kind of be true because had consulting with lydia been a rejection then it also wouldn't have been like then then it that's also a perfectly valid reason within the same like theory that's what's bothering me like c and d seemed the same to me in a weird way did here's the thing. Going to do something crazy. I just don't like C and D. They're like, I, there's something about them. Theyre like not, they're too vague and it could just be that I'm having a brain lapse, but I think I'm gonna go with the surprise answer of B. think I'm gong to go B. No, because Matthew he was not a merchant because I think that will change like the nature of an offer and acceptance of a contract. Like I feel like, man, I don't know. This might be crazy. This is probably crazy, but it's question 50. I feel Like going crazy. I just can't, I could see it being a, if there's some arbitrary time period, but I just think the odds that there, there is that and it's under a month seem, I mean, it could be a week. I don'T, but it just seems, I DON'T know. It seems unlikely likely C and D just the causality strikes me as weird C yes because Matthew did not state a time period for accepting the offer I I should just go with C because okay here's my problem with C could have set a time period and the time period could have been two months that would still be true so would mean there's a contract, but he did set a Time Period, which would make C logically invalid. Then is it still true that if you don't set a Timepair, then, but does the, this is really bothering me. I just, I don't, I think there's something wrong with C. It seems like the attractive answer, but I don' like how the logic of it is structured. Then D, yes, because consulting with Lydia was not a a rejection. That's one of those, yes, that's true. It wasn't a rejection, but it doesn't really explain anything. I guess it would just mean that the offer, we're assuming the offer was still good because I didn't reject it, which would, it just sort of is agnostic about the period of time. I don't know. Okay. I, here's the thing. C and D both seem problematic. I think I'm, I'm going to go with B. I'm just, I, it's might sound crazy. I're going to, I'm not going to go with answer B. No, because Matthew is not a merchant. And my second chance answer, I think is C. I think there's a chance I'm just totally overthinking this and it's obviously C and I'm messing up, but I just don't, I don't like it. And so my answer is B. second chance answer is C and I, this is, I've just gone crazy because something, something's bothering me about this. So I'm, I am very curious to hear what the answer is going to be. My final answer is be everyone, please play along. I will make sure to share this on blue sky skeed it on Blue Sky if you see the post and put your answer there or reddit .com slash open or patreon .com slash law in the post for this episode. Those are the places to play. So much, Heather. This was a devious one or I'm just really overthinking it. I'll have to find out next week.

1:03:17 Heather: You're welcome. And I'm sorry, once again, I was unintended to cause you so much pain and suffering.

1:03:20 Thomas: I think it's intentional. I'm sorry. I don't believe you.

1:03:28 Clip: And thank you, Let's go!

1:03:30 Thomas: Now it's time to thank our patrons on patreon .com slash law and I'm joined by the lovely doozy watcher uh lydia smith uh if any of these come across to you as doozies you let us know but I doubt it these are patrons there's no doozies

1:03:41 Lydia: All you know I'll say like doozy 10 out of 10 like like doozie rating system yeah

1:03:45 Thomas: These are all certified not doozys first up some newbies uh thank you so much steph and adrian via real thanks for being new patrons at patreon .com slash law I hope you enjoy the goodies and not hearing the stupid ads we're got to thank our Hall of Famers, our all -time greats at patreon .com slash law. These are the folks that pledge at that $5 level and above for at least a month. And they also can do a fun shout out maybe if I I'm gonna incorporate lydia into these so we start building the library of references you know it just hasn't been as fun by myself so so nice to have you where

1:03:49 Lydia: Awesome oh like encourage marital tension I mean these these are like hall of famer patrons hey what they say goes

1:04:21 Thomas: Did that come come from. Jeez. All right, everyone. I'm a little worried about where that thought came from. Thank you so much to James H., vehicular man's laughter. Michelle Chandler, a person who raises questions but does not seek their answers is not a skeptic, but a bullshitter. Well, that's interesting. I think that kind of depends. Raises questions? Don't know. I mean, I think you mean it in a just asking questions sense for sure, but I think there also could be questions, but yeah, maybe. Hanrahan, childless ladies, local 47 chapter. Is she talking about me? Apprentice of adventure, unfrozen caveman lawyer. Justice is a dish best served with cold hamburgers. That is a certain doctor who's been on SIO.

1:04:41 Lydia: The just asking questions yeah

1:05:01 Thomas: Do you know which one? That's Dr. Steve.

1:05:01 Lydia: Oh dr steve yeah oh

1:05:05 Thomas: Cavalry, Nick Fish, the world's most reluctant ray of sunshine. Sunshine a negative phenomenon quick update Ovechkin is only 26 goals from the record yeah this one's been timely now because he broke his tibia or whatever yeah but but fortunately for him only for another four weeks probably rather than if you blew out your knee you're out for the the year anyway you gotta fight for your right to export he was already skating the other day like

1:05:16 Lydia: He's like out right yeah oh wow yeah yeah quick break we gotta talk hockey.

1:05:32 Thomas: Yeah well I pretty much every time I come across this patron I give I give a little spiel about Ovechkin he was they had a really funny graphic the other day because you know as Oveichkin's been scoring he's on the Washington Capitals who the Sharks are playing today can't wait gonna be interesting we might get killed but that's it's our first test against a really good team in a while um they they did a thing because he's every time Oveachkin scores obviously there's the like how close to Gretzky's record of of 800 and what is it 800 something and I should know know that uh Ovechkin's been gone I saw a screen cap the other day of a Washington capital who scored their first goal and just listed his name and then said goals won and then it said like here's how far he is from the leader yeah it's funny you gotta fight for your right to ex parte Jaysank, can I get a chihuahua? What is that oh you know what that is oh does

1:06:10 Lydia: Distance to Gretzky. Yeah. Chihuahua. I don't know. No, but I just said it like Maui from Moana. I dunno. Think so.

1:06:23 Thomas: He say chi who respond with that so fast that I was like how okay well there you go patron you've connected with my wife test ease interpreter oh great now I have to go back to changing my name every month I mean kind of seems like you don't that's funny yeah that's a good response thomas that was a patron by the way that a patron said I mean kinda seems like like you don't. The next patron to, oh great, now I have to go back to changing my name every month because they never change it. So that's good. Well done. Thomas Freeman, Cajun Killer, Fraud Fishy Hates Everything, Chris Simpson, love the extra episodes. Check out the Queer in Cryptography conference at cryptography .lgbt. Liberal Zone Guns 2, support root cause mitigation, not ineffective gun control. Not a lawyer, but I play one in court. I give up on funny names. I'm just Leo G for now. This isn't a Patreon name and I'm not reading anything right now. I just just personally think legal eagle is so handsome mark schultz the cincinnati kid blah blah blah podcast philly basement bar is closed in morning yeah edgy veggie hors d 'oeuvres in the court before we report elect thomas smith president american honky tonk bar association that one is so old that's funny balticate philip kaiser all fridays matter

1:06:28 Lydia: It just, I felt it in my bones. Let me know if I was right yeah oh my gosh yeah really

1:07:37 Thomas: The 501st and rebel legion want you cosplayers doing good a string of unpronounceable characters Milo Meadsong is on to the post-conviction process now that his cert petition was denied. Malaika Chandler, Malcolm the Dragon, the precious variant, Big Easy Blasphemy, RondaTheDork .com, Fred R. Grotheus, Chris Waltrip, Mitchell, and Classic libtard. Boy, those two. Mitchell is so close now. Next month, Mitchell will have overtaken Classic libtard for the top spot. Yeah, crazy.

1:08:09 Thomas: All right. Well, Well, that's our top patrons. Thanks so much. Hey, patreon .com slash law. And if you can't support the show, we get it. Can you please share the show? Can you Please write a good review? Still suffers in the review department from the previous previous assholes. So if the yeah, and what sucks is we lost so many of those listeners because of that. If anyone left a bad review at that time and is still listening, could you update it? That would be great. Would mean a lot. All

1:08:24 Lydia: The before times we're on blue sky we're on Instagram Twitter still kind of but not really

1:08:39 Thomas: Yeah open

1:08:39 Lydia: But blue blue sky and Instagram I think are like the big the big places to follow the yes open arcs

1:08:41 Thomas: Args baby instagram is like open argspod I think but yeah click that link tree at the show notes and you can find everything all right thanks so much for listening everyone thanks for uh doozy watch lydia well done and uh we'll see you for rapid response friday yeah I know

1:09:02 Clip: This podcast is a production of Opening Arguments Media, LLC, All Rights Reserved. It is produced and edited by Thomas Smith, who also provided the fabulous intro and outro music used with permission.

1:09:19 Lydia: Is just a case all over again.

1:09:25 Thomas: We don't have time to put that in the end at least I've

1:09:29 Heather: By the way, I'm going to be shooting you.