The Howie Carr Radio Network

Peter Navarro Starts 4 Month Prison Sentence plus The Oppenheimer Review No One Asked For | 3.19.24 - The Grace Curley Show Hour 1

Former Trump aide Peter Navarro is headed to prison for contempt of Congress. Meanwhile, the Biden Crime Family roams free. Then, tune in for Grace's full review of Oppenheimer. Sure, her opinions are coming several months late, but think of it as an aged wine or cheese.

Duration:: 38m
Broadcast on:: 19 Mar 2024
Audio Format:: mp3

Today's podcast is brought to you by Howie's new book Paperboy. To order today, go to HowieCarShow.com and click on store. Live from the Aviva Trattria Studio, it's the Grace Curly Show. We've got to bring in a new voice, a young voice, a rising voice, Grace Curly. You can read Grace's work in the Boston Herald and the Spectator. Especially Grace, Grace Standup. Here's the millennial with the mic, Grace Curly. Welcome back, everyone, to the Grace Curly Show. Thank you all so much for joining us today. We've got a lot to get to. I mean, that's the standing headline of the Grace Curly Show. It's either we have a lot to get to, Jared, or it's we have a great show prepared for you today. Usually, both things are true, I would say, if I do say so myself. And today, I actually wanted to start with a story about, and it's going to lead into other things. It all has to do with Donald Trump and all these cases he's dealing with, but it's one that's not getting as much attention, and that would be Peter Navarro. Now, Peter Navarro is a former Trump White House official. He reported to a Miami prison today for his four-month sentence. That's right. Yesterday, he appealed, he wanted to have a sentence paused, and that was declined by Chief Justice Roberts. And so today, he shows up for his prison sentence. The crime, in case you haven't been following this, as I said, it's not a sexy of a headline because it's not Donald Trump in cuffs. But the crime here is defying a January 6 committee subpoena. And while I was reading about this today, and everybody knows this is one of these stories that always stuck with me. He talked about being in Hinckley's cell. He was arrested at the Nashville airport. According to Peter Navarro, he was put in leg irons, cuffs, the whole bit. And so today, I was reading a little bit more about it. What I didn't know is when he was originally served this subpoena by the feds, he said to them, "Get the bleep out of here." That was his response. Pretty badass. I respect that. So, yes, this is his crime. It's contempt of Congress. And if you want to understand why the American people, specifically Republicans, but I do think it's breaking more into the independence now who are watching all of this unfold. If you want to understand why people are concerned that we have a two-tiered system of justice and that things aren't on the level, watch Peter Navarro in his speech outside of this Miami prison before he's getting ready to embark on his four-month sentence. Watch him talking to reporters and then Google Eric Holder contempt of Congress charges. And that ought to clear it up for you. That can do more to explain the situation than I ever could. But you really, you look at, and it's not just Eric Holder. I mean, that's one of the more clear cases of why, you know, this is so absurd. But really, when you look at all these people, you look at Hunter Biden, Fannie Willis, Hillary Clinton, Peter Struck, Lisa Page, John Brennan, Eric Holder, and you see these Democrats not only not serving well-deserved jail time. Like prison was never even a possibility. There was no orange jumpsuits in their future. But not just that. It's that they keep their jobs. In some cases, they get new jobs. They get promotions. They keep their security clearances. They write books. They write tell-alls. They make millions of dollars. They do late night show interviews. And then you have Peter Navarro, 74 years old, being hauled off to the clinic. And they say his crime is contempt of Congress, but we all know what his real crime is. If you look up Peter Navarro, the way they describe him is either former White House aide, former White House official, or which I think is a lot more telling for the current circumstances he's in Trump ally. He's a Trump guy. And that's what this is all about. And that's the same reason, according to Navarro, that they put him in handcuffs and leg irons, like I said at the National Airport in 2022. They threw him in John Hinckley's cell to make a point, you know, to pay a little bit of homage, to give a little hat tip to John Hinckley, I guess. They thought that was important to send a message. But all this stuff is to send a message. And the message is we're in a banana republic. And meanwhile, while all that's happening, Trump's lawyers, and this is a big story today. And we've been following it because really the part of it that I don't get is, well, let me start by saying this. Trump's lawyers are saying he can't pay the, and I've seen two different figures here. I've seen $454 million and $464 million. That's the bond that Trump would have to pay in this New York civil case. This is the judge and Garron case, the gym, the gym judge, the one who was at the gym. Taylor did a whole thing on that when I was gone. He can't, they're saying he can't pay it. And keep in mind that this money he needs to put up, this is to appeal the ruling. Like in order to appeal it, and a lot of people think that upon appeal, this ruling's not going to, not going to stand, it's excessive. But just to appeal it, he needs to put up that money. And the interest, by the way, every single day is over $100,000. So every day, I think it's like $112,000 is added to this. So they're saying now, they're reporting, and I read this, I think in the Wall Street Journal, no, no. In the New York Post, that Trump's gone to 30 firms, whoever, like his lawyers, have gone to 34 firms to secure the bond with no luck. Nobody wants to help. Nobody wants to do business with them. I wonder why. And so now, Tish James, who ran on getting Trump and based off the smirk, the permanent smirk she constantly is wearing on her face, I would say she's pleased with herself on that front. She thinks she's had success here. So she's floated the idea of going after the former president's properties herself, putting them up at like a fire sale to secure the bond. And, Jared, do you remember when we were talking about this a few weeks ago? I was so curious. I don't know if I asked. I probably asked Mark Salinas about it. But I was so confused because I thought, okay, well, if he were to sell his properties, because he obviously has Trump Tower, he has some real estate in New York that is known for being Trump real estate, but he also has stake in properties that you wouldn't know he's involved in. They don't have Trump in the gold letters outside. But I thought, even if he were to sell all this, to come up with the 454 or 464, however much it is, it doesn't seem fair that if he appeals it and they decide you're right, this was excessive, that he can't go anywhere to get back his property. And if he does get it back, he's going to have to pay more for it. So that part of it, and then I was thinking, I was like, well, maybe that's just how life works, I guess. You're going to get screwed over. Sorry. There's nothing we can do for you. But in the New York Post article, it said, Trump's side argued that he shouldn't be forced to sell his properties in a fire sale in order to come up with cash because he'd suffer irreparable losses in selling them for cheap. It would never be able to get them back at the same price if he won the ultimate appeal of the judgment. I think that argument stands. It's like, okay, so I sell all this property now to come up with this ludicrous amount to appeal it, and let's say I went on appeal. Do I get all that property back? Do the people that bought it from me? Are they just going to give it back to me at the same price? Probably not. And so I saw Turley today, and everybody knows I'm a big fan of Jonathan Turley, and he thinks the Supreme Court might have to step in before it even gets there because of the excessive ruling. I want to play a little bit of this sound of Jonathan Turley. Jared, just hit me with Jonathan Turley on this topic. Well, this is obviously a situation where you don't have any good options, including getting the bond itself. And I remember if you get the bond, you still lose considerable amount of money on the cost of the bond. And this creates a sort of perverse incentive for judges like this one who comes up with this astronomical, my view, ridiculous. Level of everybody's view. Nobody thinks that number is good. Right, but in order, basically, his position is in order to get any other judge to look at what I've done to you, you've got to come up with basically a half a billion dollars just to appeal. It's like a judge saying I'm going to take your house away, but you can appeal my decision just to sell your house in order to do it. Yeah, and it is political law fair. That's the way I've seen it described a lot, and I think it's accurate. I think it's very dangerous. And there's a part of this conversation that keeps getting brought up about, and Kevin O'Leary, for example, talks about this a lot on Fox. Jonathan Turley brings it up later in this interview about who would want to do business in New York. Like if this is hella Tisha James is going to treat people who are successful real estate tycoons or business people, who would want to go there? And I don't know, I don't know if people, if a lot of these like billionaire business people can see that far ahead. And I know what you're thinking, oh, Grace, you think you're smarter than the billionaire, you know, business guys. No, I don't, but what I'm saying is I bet in their minds they're thinking, well, this is how they're treating Trump, but that's just because they hate Trump. Like everybody thinks, oh, they're never going to do this to me. Like Trump's once in a lifetimes kind of the hate he jins up in people, the way he occupies real estate in people's minds, that's never going to happen to me. They're not going to bother themselves with coming after me. And I really do think that. I think business, business guys and women too, business people in New York are probably looking at this and going, oh, well, this is. It's never going to happen like this again. Leticia James is going to consume herself with this case and with Trump, but she's not going to go after other business people. And that's the danger. And you can take that, it's emblematic of the problem on so many levels. It's because people always assume that. They go, well, they're going after Trump, but it's because Trump is such a once in a lifetime jerk. That's what these Trump deranged people think. He's really, he's a monster. So they have to go after him like this. The ends justify the means because he's unique in his awfulness. And it's like, no, no, no, no, no, no. He's not. They, this will affect everybody. Everybody should be concerned about where this goes down the road. I just don't know if people have that foresight. Yeah. And that's why it's dangerous. I mean, they're going after the business people first, which is what they're going to do. They're going to go after these people because they're the people that can lend money to the little people. Now, if you extrapolate this out, what they're doing is basically what was Trump's crime here? He over inflated the value of a property. There were no victims. There were no victims. There was really no crime, but that's the crime here. So now let's extrapolate this to unrealized capital gains tax, which everybody loves. So now this is a Trojan horse to get into your average person. You know, your parents that bought that house in Brockton or Lynn or wherever in the 70s or the, you know, whatever it was worth now. And now it's worth a million dollars. Well, you can't pay the capital gains tax on that million dollars. Well, sorry, we have to seize your property. And we have a precedent. And there's a precedent that's going to be set for this. And the precedent is a former president. They want to get Trump because they hate Trump. But really, again, like he said, they're coming after you. They're just using him to get the precedent to come after you. And that's, that's the real danger here. Yeah. And then again, so, so, okay, let's, they do this to Trump. He loses all his property. When they go after JP Morgan, when they go after Chase, any of these banks, any of these lenders, people, any of these people who could give the bond. They're not giving it to Trump, but they may give it to a mother in Brockton, let's say. No, they're not going to be around to do this and the government is just going to seize your property. You have no legal recourse to any of this. Jared, I had no idea you're so. That is the ultimate design of this. It's to just basically seize property. It's communism tactics. One-on-one, it's banana republic stuff. Yeah. They just want to seize everybody's property. This is how they'll force you out of the home. It's show me the man. I'll show you the crime. But just to tie this back into Peter Navarro, at this point, it's become show me the man and anyone who supports the man and I will show you the crime. Roger Stone was swatted because he has a tattoo of Richard Nixon. Peter Navarro was thrown in jail because he works for Donald Trump. This is what's going on here. Yeah, and people are not opening their eyes to it. Now, there is some, I shouldn't say good news, but it does make me happy that Trump's not just getting sued. He's also being proactive and also suing people. He's not just taking everything lying down. We have an update on the George Stephanopoulos interview with a Congresswoman Nancy Mayes from last week. We'll get to that when we come back and we'll take your calls. 844-500-42-42. You've been waiting for it and now it's here. The Eden Pierce Thunderstorm air purifier Bogo offer is on. The Thunderstorm is awesome. It's a lifesaver. Whether you have a kitchen mishap. I've never had one of those, Jared. Nobody's burning the food. Nobody's ruining dinner in my house. Okay. I'm a wonderful chef. But hypothetically, if I were to overcook something, if something were to burn in the oven, I have the thunderstorm. I can turn it on and it gets rid of the smell. If you have allergens, if you have pollutants, if you have anything in your home in your basement, maybe that musty basement smell, that musty basement odor, you can eliminate it. You can clear it out in minutes with the thunderstorm. It's going to leave your home smelling fresh and you're not going to be able to smell any of those lingering odors. A lot of people ask us, does it really work? Yes, it does. And no matter what your issue is, you're going to have a great purpose to use the thunderstorm. Small enough to hold in your hand, doesn't take up any floor space. And here's what I want you to do. I want you to go to Edenpuredeals.com and enter code grace Bogo. That's buy one, get one. That's Edenpuredeals.com code grace Bogo to get the Thunderstorm air purifier today and to get another one for free. We'll take your calls when we come back. Don't go anywhere. It's the Grace Curly Show. You're listening to the Grace Curly Show. This is the Grace Curly Show. Look, you don't have to light Donald Trump to be appalled by what we're seeing. I can't imagine why any business in New York would want to continue to do business in New York, including these banks. Could you imagine being the bank that gives this bond to Trump when you've got an attorney general who is just laying waste to the land? I mean, these banks don't want to get in the crosshairs as the next target of the Tisha James. Keep in mind that what you just played by James was a campaign based on selective prosecution. Selective prosecution is anathema to the rule of law. Yeah, she told people what she was going to do, and now she's doing it. She ran on "I'm going to get Trump," and now she's trying to get him. So you've got to give her props on her honesty. She didn't bamboozle anyone in New York. But the part about, and that was Jonathan Turley, by the way, the part about why would anyone want to do business in New York? I genuinely think, and I don't know the politics of every business owner in New York, and I'm talking big business owners. I'm talking like the billionaires, the real estate guys, the banks. I don't know their politics. But I do think that there is this, I don't know if it's cognitive dissonance where it's like, it's not going to happen to me. I don't have to worry about that. This is so far fetched that eventually it's going to happen to all of us. I think that that's where people find comfort. It's like, no, they're just going after Trump because they hate him. But they don't hate me. Kevin, you're up next on The Grace Curly Show. Go ahead, Kevin. Hey, Grace, for all those people that think it's just somebody going after Trump and Trump alone, it was just a couple of days after Kathy Hochl said just that, that they're only going after Trump and nobody had to worry. Latisha James went after JBS, which is one of the biggest big producers on the planet. And she's suing them now because they're not going green enough fast enough. They said they were going to be net zero by 2040 or some nonsense. And she doesn't think it's happening fast enough, so she's suing them. I got to look into that. I mean, I fully believe it. And it's interesting because you always hear about these net zero things and these goals that the companies put on. Oh, by 2035, by 2038. So I fully believe that, Kevin, and you're right. So hopefully those business owners are waking up to this. Meet conglomerates. Yeah, going after the big meat, big meat, and then it's big snickers. And then what's next? Who's to say? But it is something that if you're able to see a step ahead, you'd understand, first they come for Trump and I said nothing. That type of logic. But a lot of people don't have that type of logic. Look at illegal immigration. How many years were people in Texas telling people, you wouldn't like this if it was you. You wouldn't like it if your state was burdened with this around the clock. And you were responsible for housing and feeding all of these people from other countries who are coming in illegally. You wouldn't like it. And what did these Democrats states and what do these Democrat politicians say? No, no, no, I'd be compassionate. When it's when if it ever happened here, we would be compassionate because they never thought it actually would. And what are we seeing now? We're seeing Eric Adams. We're seeing Brandon Johnson. We're seeing all of these Democrat mayors backing away from it and saying the end is closed. We have no room. So I just it always astounds me how thinking ahead like that and kind of thinking about how things are going to play out in the long run. How things could snowball down down the road. Always seems to evade these Democrats. Today's poll question is brought to you by Perfect Smiles. Don't be fooled by imposters with similar names. If you're unhappy with your smile, visit Dr. Bruce Houghton in Nashua. Call 1-844 a perfect smile or visit PerfectSmiles.com. Jared, a lot of people complaining already about this poll question. Give it to me. Yeah, they're calling the poll question unanswerable, which was kind of the point of what we were going for. Today's poll question, which you can vote in at gracecurlyshow.com, is who do you trust more? Big government or big tech? This is inspired by the four year anniversary of 15 days to slow the spread. I'm going big tech. 91% of the audience agrees with you. No love for big government. We'll be right back. We'll talk more about this when we return. Live from the Aviva Tratria studio. I think it's always important to remind people what they have to be grateful for. And this is a small thing, but just be happy if you're out there, you know, just getting along with your Tuesday. Just be happy you don't work with me, because my coworkers, they have to deal with when I watch a movie. It's, Jared, it's like, first of all, the first person to ever see the movie. I watch it six months later, and then I got to give you a play-by-play of every thought I had. I'm self-aware. I understand why I'm insufferable. But it's like now I'm going through Oppenheimer, because I finished the last night, and talking about it to everyone who doesn't care and who hasn't seen Oppenheimer. No one in this office has seen it. So I feel like I have this masterpiece in my mind that I have to explain to all of you. Finish the movie last night for anyone who's keeping track at home. Really good. Here was the issue, though. Somebody had logged in to Peacock, and I think it was my brother. He had logged in to his Peacock so we could watch the movie. Last night, almost every member of the curly family, for some God for sake and reason, was watching something on Peacock at the same time. So I watched the last hour and a half of Oppenheimer with a constant buffering. You know that circle? And it's a hard movie to keep track. That might have been the radiation. It's a hard movie to keep track of all the plot things. And this person did this. And this is Robert Downey Jr.'s explaining who's bad, who's good, who turned on who. And this buffering thing is popping up. So by the end of it, I texted my family group chat. I said, "For the love of Peacock, who's ever on Peacock?" I will log off this thing after this, and I will never log on again. But for the next nine minutes, let me finish Oppenheimer the way I'm supposed to finish it. Not with this weird circle in it. But it was a crazy, crazy movie. Well, not directly with a circle. You know who would love Oppenheimer, who would never watch it? And unless I set it up in his office and shut the door and locked him in, how he car, he would love it. There's so much history. The acting's so good. The visuals are so incredible. But if I told him that, he'd be like, "Nah, I've got a Boston Blackie. I've got a Boston Blackie to watch." So that's never going to happen. I ate four, four, five hundred, forty-two, forty-two. But my review? Ten out of ten. What should I watch next? What movie came out like six to nine months ago that no one cares about anymore? I honestly have no idea. You're not a movie guy. I'm not a movie guy. What do you mean? Not a TV guy, really, anymore. You prefer your cartoons? Well, yeah. Your comics. I'm sorry. Is there a difference? One's, you know, on television, the other one's a paper. But, yeah, no, I tend to read a lot. If we watch anything now, it's something the boy wants to watch. Got it. Well, you're missing out, man. You're missing out on some good stuff. Maybe I'll see if he wants to watch Oppenheimer. Yeah. Hey, there's a lot to learn there. There's a lot of history. Nineteen months now, he'll get it. How old were you, by the way, when all that Manhattan Project and that stuff was going on? I was a spry eleven-year-old then doing my part for the war collecting scraps with my wagon. You were like tuck everlasting. Like, we have no idea how old this person truly is. All right, let's get back to Trump now. Trump is suing ABC in George Stephanopoulos. If you're not sure why, I want a little refresher here. And by the way, later in the show, we are going to get into COVID. It's a four-year anniversary of 15 days to slow the spread. It's been, it was a lot longer than 15 days. I don't know how many days exactly. We could probably do a little math and count it up. How many days it actually ended up being? And the spread was not slowed by the additional days that were added to that count. We will get to all of that. I want to talk about the learning loss. I want to talk about the loss in trust in these public institutions. Everybody gather around. We're going to tell the story of the before time again. Yeah. And just kind of go back there for a little bit, which I know is not something that people typically want to do, but I'll explain why I think it is crucial that we do just that. But first, let's wrap this up here. So Trump is now suing George Stephanopoulos in ABC. And if you missed it last week, George Stephanopoulos, I should say, Clintonite and noted or famous rape apologist, George Stephanopoulos. That's probably the best way to introduce this. He had an interview with Congresswoman from South Carolina, Nancy Mase. And Stephanopoulos, the consummate professional, that he is, he thought it would be a good idea to use Nancy Mase's trauma as a rape victim, as a way to shame her for her political support of Donald Trump. And I want to play this for you. And actually, hold on, before we do, should I just take this one? We've got somebody on the line. Okay. You know what? Because I'm the one who brought it up. Jim, go ahead, Jim. What's going on? Hi. It's great there. Yeah. This is this issue. Hi, Grace. I just wanted to say I feel you because I watch all the movies. Nobody else watches too. But have you heard of dark waters with Mark Ruffalo? No, I have not. That's a great one. That's important. Everybody should see that. And also, Cold Case Hammer Show, which is about Doug Hammer Show, who was the Secretary, generally United Nations in 1961 that was assassinated. That's a great fact-based documentary about that whole situation. And so I'd recommend that highly if you get a chance. Jim, can I ask you, have you seen Anatomy of a Fall? Anatomy of a Fall. I have not. That's on my list right now. And also the holdovers because a lot of it was filmed in Boston. So I want to check those two out, but I did write yours down and I will get to them eventually. It takes me just a couple of months to get through a movie. So I will come back with a full report. Thank you, Jim, for the call. Okay. So, George Stephanopoulos, he's interviewing Nancy Mays. And let's play the actual interview because Trump is now suing him and as crazy as it would be for Trump to win a defamation case against anybody. Defamation cases are hard to win in general, let alone when you are the Webster definition of a public figure. Like, if you looked up public figure in the dictionary, there'd be a picture, there'd be a beautiful picture of Donald Trump with a big red tie. But still, I think what he's probably aiming for is just to have George Stephanopoulos have to apologize on air. Which if you've ever witnessed that, it happens once in a while where one of these anchors or one of these hosts or journalists has to apologize on the air. It's always fun to watch. It's always pretty satisfying. So let's take the original cut here. This is cut 10. And you've endorsed Donald Trump for president judges and two separate juries have found him liable for rape and for defaming the victim of that rape. Donald Trump has been found liable for rape by a jury. Donald Trump has been found liable for defaming the victim of that rape by a jury. It's been affirmed by a judge and why you endorse someone who's been found liable for rape. It was not a criminal. It was a civil court. It was a civil court. And by the way, how is the question asking you about a presidential candidate? You're asking a rape victim. Okay. So pause it here. He used that phrase a lot. That was a super cut liable for rape. Now this is when the post says the suit takes aim. It's Stephanopoulos is questioning for saying Trump has been found liable for rape when a jury in a Manhattan civil case last year only found Trump liable for sexual abuse under New York law. Now again, the only thing I had and I thought Nancy Mase during that exchange handled herself with a lot of grace. And I'm not like her biggest fan. She's oftentimes I can't I somehow just can't get a read on her. She's all over the map. She's a bit of a flip flopper to be honest, but in that particular instance, she did a beautiful job of not letting him get the better of her because I would have been I don't think I would have been it's kind. I think I probably would have lashed out a little bit more, but she was very, very well spoken and she was very calm about it. And the only thing I'm sure she wishes she had done during that moment is bring up Stephanopoulos's own history of covering for predators like Bill Clinton. I mean, it would have been perfect, but fear not, social media was very quick to remind George of his own pathetic past. Now like I said, Trump suing ABC because their star host said Trump has didn't found reliable for rape, which in fact, that did not happen, but it's hard to win a defamation case. But still it's good that it's good they're not just letting it slide because it really is egregious to say it multiple times. And the part of the story that I thought was very important is that there are situations like I've had that here before in the show where I'll say something and how he will correct me. Like I'll I'll phrase something and say, well, the guy who murdered and how he'll have throw in like an allegedly because he knows, listen, people are litigious, things get, you know, you've got to be careful. You've got to be careful. George Stephanopoulos, he's not he's not spring chicken. Like he's not new with this. The people at ABC are not new with this. They know exactly what Trump was charged with. They know exactly the correct way to phrase it. And he's doing the opposite anyway, because they think they're untouchable. They think that like, oh, you know, look at the whole world's against Trump. All these judges are against Trump. All these court cases are against Trump. We can say whatever we want. And so I like that Trump's lawyers are going, and no, you can't. You really can't eight four four five hundred forty two forty two. When we come back, we've got a lot more to get to. We'll take your calls. It's eight four four five hundred forty two forty two. Like I said, I do want to get into. A four year anniversary of 15 days to slow the spread. And I understand why you might say, do we have to? It was such a dark time for so many people, but it's important to remember history. Otherwise, we might be doomed to repeat it. And Scott Atlas, a doctor Scott Atlas, also Trump ally. You might say he was a part of the 2020 COVID team for a while. He wrote a he co-wrote a piece in the Wall Street Journal talking about this talking about some of the effects. And he was one of the guys who is urging people to let cooler heads prevail, to keep your head about you. You know, let's not all freak out. And that's why he was blacklisted so quickly, like the guy who said, Hey, you know what, we shouldn't make people panic. Well, the people who are obsessed with panic porn and pushing that panic porn, they didn't like that. So Scott Atlas joined the ranks of like Rand Paul, Marty, Marty McCarry, a lot of other people who they didn't want to hit the panic button. So they became persona non grata. We'll talk about that when we come back and we've got a lot of stories to get to. So don't go anywhere. This is the Grace Curly show. Follow Grace on Twitter at G underscore Curly. This is the Grace Curly show. A lot of legal experts like Jonathan Turley are appalled at what they're seeing in several of these cases, but specifically the New York civil case against Donald Trump and the amount of money he's being asked to put up as a bond if he wants to appeal it. And then meanwhile, you have the media that isn't really concerned with it at all. They're more concerned with Donald Trump using the term bloodbath to describe the what will happen to the auto industry if he's not elected. And you know what I found very, but the timing of it was amusing to me while everyone's apoplectic about Trump using this term bloodbath and a totally, you know, what he used to say Jared about the phone call, it was a perfect phone call, it was the perfect way to use it. And you all know, if there was something wrong with it, I'm the peanut gallery when it comes to Donald Trump and some of these decisions he makes. So I tend to be a little bit of a thorn when it's about, you know, something he said that got him into trouble. In this case, I was like, well, what other way would he describe it? What did he do wrong? He didn't do anything wrong. That's the context. Well, everyone's melting down about he used the term bloodbath Keith Overman to eat. So basically at hoping for the assassination of former president Donald Trump. I don't think that will cause well, first of all, Keith Overman is irrelevant. Nobody really knows who he is, but also it just doesn't matter. If you're a Democrat and you say something like this, then nobody freaks out, nobody's concerned about it. But if you're a Republican and you use a widely known term that is not offensive to describe something happening to the economy, then hold on a second. The whole world is going to implode. Arthur, you're up next on the Grace Curly show. Go ahead, Arthur. Thanks for taking my call, Grace. Well, you know what, the Democrats constantly have caused a call for blood in the streets and actually delivered, especially during that summer over the George Floyd, the summer of love. So yeah, anything but love, I mean, when you see what's going on today, and by the way, you can't refer to what we have today as a media. The media was something that the Founding Fathers established to turn around and be a watchdog so that the government couldn't be out of control and some other group other than them would investigate them to show what's right, what was wrong. And we don't have that today, and that's a big part of our problem. And yet we failed, we have failed to do anything about it and all these years. So we deserve what we have and what we get. Okay. And my sister was raped in a garage and she could never go back to a parking garage after that horrible episode that she experienced. And these people have no conscience, I mean, they're despicable. And every day you're incensed, I mean, as decent people that we are who care about what's right in our country and what it's become and what it looks like it's going to be. And what power was to do anything about it, which is the worst feeling that you can have these judgments that are so wrong, so wrong. And yet where is the body, the power association somewhere, even the Supreme Court somehow should step in. Yeah, because it's mob justice and you know what, Arthur, I'm glad you said that because again, I know I'm playing a lot of these Jonathan Turley cuts and I'm sorry if you're all going enough with Turley, but he's on Fox all the time because he's just he's a rational voice in the madness. And this is what he had to say on that same thing about the Supreme Court stepping in to echo Arthur's great point. It's cut seven. It doesn't, many people look at this as a type of almost mob justice as you know, the attorney general ran on bagging Trump. She's now pledging to seize his property just because he can't come up with his bond. At some point, the courts have got to step in and say, look, this is just simply enough. You know, you're requiring this astronomical bond just for this guy to be able to get any other judge to look at this decision. Yeah. And while they're going after Trump, while they're obsessing about him and these court cases, these victimless crimes, like what we're seeing in New York where in fact, it's even, it's even worse than being victimless crimes. The supposed victims in this case are going, yeah, we did, we ended up doing pretty well. We wanted to do more business with Trump. And they're the, they're the party that we're supposed to feel like, oh, they got screwed. It doesn't make any sense, but it does make sense in the same context that what they're doing to Peter Navarro makes sense. And I don't know what it is about that case that really sticks out to me. I don't know if it's just, because I always thought Peter Navarro was, he seemed like a cool guy when he worked the Trump White House. He was, he was involved in a, he's an economist. He knows his stuff, like he's pretty sharp. And to see the 74 year old man get hauled in to do a four month sentence. Something about it is so banana republic to me. It really is. And a lot of people are saying, oh, you don't have to go back as far as Eric Holder, like look at Hunter Biden, look at all these other people. I know I listed a bunch of people that come to mind, but I don't think there's any question that there is a double standard here, that there's two systems of justice. And Peter Navarro, Donald Trump fall under one branch and Hunter Biden and Peter struck and Lisa Page and John Brennan, they all fall under another. When we come back, we have a lot to get to. We have news about Biden and Obama and in a strange report about some tension in their bromance also, we're going to talk about the four year anniversary of COVID. I want to take your calls on it. What you remember, what you hope there is some answers for, because there's still a lot of questions out there. We never got answers for it. There's still a lot of people who were never held accountable for what happened during those years. We'll take your calls on it. We'll continue when we come back. (upbeat music)