The Howie Carr Radio Network
David Marcus talks Trump NYC Trial plus Neil McCabe Reveals J6 Bombshells | 4.17.24 - The Grace Curley Show Hour 2
Grace brings in the big guns to explain two major cases this week. First, columnist David Marcus breaks down the Manhattan jury selection for President Trump's hush money case. Then, Neil McCabe shares the latest findings in the ongoing fiasco regarding the Washington, D.C. protest on January 6, 2021.
- Duration:
- 38m
- Broadcast on:
- 17 Apr 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. But gotta 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, they stand up. Here's the millennial with the mic, Grace Curly. Welcome back everyone to the Grace Curly Show. As I said earlier, we've got so many great guests lined up for you today because there's so much news out there. There's a lot of cases that are underway, a jury selection underway for Donald Trump in the New York City Hush Money case, also here in Massachusetts. The jury selection for the Karen Reid case, which has really swept the nation and there's just so much interest and enthusiasm when it comes to Karen Reid. That is also underway. Only four jurors selected for Karen Reid yesterday, so I'll be interested to hear from Turtle Boy, Fingers Cross later on joining us now from the Morning Wire, the New York Post, the Daily Mail, really anywhere that you probably click on to read major stories. We've got David Marcus joining us now. David, I wanted to start with Donald J. Trump. He's making waves in New York City. So, the first seven jurors have been selected and Mayor Eric Adams was actually quoted assuring Americans that the Big Apple is a fair city. It's still pretty early on in this Hush Money trial, but I would love your takeaways thus far. Yeah. I mean, look, sure, New York City is a fair city. First of all, this isn't all of New York City, it's Manhattan, which is just overwhelmingly sapphire blue, even compared to sort of Brooklyn and Queens and the rest of it. So, it's going to be tough. I mean, look, the foreman, juror number one, apparently reads the Daily Mail. So, you know, maybe he's seen some of my colleagues criticizing all the brag. I don't know. But, yeah, look, it's going to be tough. I mean, our entire system of justice is sort of predicated on the idea that we as citizens are capable of doing this, right? Right. And I'd like to think that whoever gets picked is going to be able to do it, but you're usually not walking into a courtroom and seeing a former president of the United States who you might either adore or despise. Yeah, it's pretty fraud. Yeah. And that's also the crazy part of it. David is like, yeah, you can, because a lot of people are taking these descriptions of the jurors and they're mentioning things like what you said oh, they read Fox, they read the Daily Mail, or, you know, one of them works for Disney. And you can make all the assumptions you want, but we really don't know what's in these people's hearts. That's part of the whole process, as it's hard to say. But I was thinking about it from my perspective, because sometimes the, I used to think it was very easy to, I thought that if you had any sort of leaning one way or the other that you'd be dismissed, that they wouldn't want you. But the more I find out about this stuff, the more I read about it, it really does come down to, unless you have, like, you work for the president or, you know, you follow him on social media, a lot of these cases do come down to do you think you are capable of being impartial? Do you think you are capable of making a fair judgment without letting your political opinions or your opinions in general affect that? And David, just from my POV, if someone asked me that, I would say no. I don't know a lot of people who could do that. In this case, it would be very difficult. I think I would answer yes. But it's something, I mean, it's one of the aspects of the American experiment that, you know, I think about a lot of it is very sort of important to me. But a lot of what this will come down to, and we haven't talked about this yet, but towards the end of the trial, this will become a very, very important issue, is what the judges' instructions are to that jury, right? Because that's what this jury will use as its objective measure to say, did he commit this crime or not? Now, look, a lot of people like Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley say, this isn't even a crime at all. I don't think that's something the jurors get to decide, right? That's something that an appeals court gets to decide. So it'll be very interesting to see, when we get to the end of all the testimony, how the judge instructs them, because that will be the ruler that they have to use in measuring guilt or innocence. Yeah. And the other part of this, too, since Trump is in New York City for these court cases, and I do think he's making the most out of it. Even when he's outside the court, David, I've noticed that when he's in that corridor, like that hallway where he's not inside the courtroom, but he's not exactly outside yet, there's something about that video that every time he makes comments from there, it's very powerful, the visual of it. And then he turns his back on the reporters, it's something like out of a movie. And so he's been taking advantage of this publicity, and yesterday he took a trip to Harlem. He visited a Bodega owner who had a very kind of infamous situation at his Bodega two years ago, when a clerk who was defending himself from an ex-con was actually arrested for his self-defense. He was met with cheers. Now, when I see these videos, David, and I see Trump being cheered on in Harlem or meeting with supporters at a Chick-fil-A in Georgia, I can't help but as an observer just go, wow, this is powerful stuff. I think this is stuff that can change elections and can kind of move the needle. But perhaps, is it just overblown by people like me who are on social media watching this stuff? What does this do for people who might be more in the middle? No, look, I think you're spot on, and I think there's two things that it does. I mean, number one, for a national audience, these are just great events for Trump. I mean, this is where he thrives. He loves it. He knows how to work a room. He's just very, very good at it, right? And this was not something that anybody really had on their radar, but listen, not for nothing. Lee's held and only lost New York by four points a couple years ago, right? Forcing Donald Trump to spend six weeks in New York City and near Long Island, where several times a week he could go do something like this. There's a little electoral danger in that, right? There's a reason that Joe Biden is in Pennsylvania for three straight days today. It matters being in the place. So, I don't know, it hadn't even occurred to be until I saw that Bodega trip yesterday. But it's not even that Trump could win it, could Trump make the Democrats spend some money there? Could it have down ballot impacts on the House of Representatives? It's fascinating. Yeah, and you're right, it probably does put him on the radar for a lot of people who otherwise wouldn't be paying attention, because they're forced to, because there's traffic, there's, you know, secret service everywhere. You're absolutely right. I never thought of that, that maybe now they're actually, once again, the Democrats have overplayed their hand. Speaking of MAGA, David, Katie Couric was the subject of many a Kyron yesterday because of a comment she made on Bill Maher's podcast. And I was discussing this yesterday and you actually came up, you're one of the people I thought of, she claims that, you know, the motive or the, some of what's driving the enthusiasm of conservatives who support Trump is anti-intellectualism and class resentment. Now, does Katie Couric in your experience with conservative voters and in conservative circles, does she have an accurate idea of the average Trump voter based off those comments? No, I mean, first of all, there's no average Trump voter, right? I mean, there's, there's, there's a kind of like, there's a kind of image or avatar of the like super MAGA person on X, right, or formerly Twitter, right? But half the country are Trump supporters, right? There's all kinds of different ones. There's college professors, there's doctors, there's trash men, right? Just like Democrats, they're sort of all over the map. Katie Couric doesn't mean anti-intellectual. Katie Couric means anti-college wokeness for lack of a better term, right? And that is something that we should be against, quite frankly. Yeah, and I would say, David, I rarely would interrupt you, but I would also say anti-snob. Like a lot of what she was describing to me, I thought, well, if I don't, I don't want to conflate being an intellectual, being a snob. I know a lot of smart people, I have you on the show, I have Libby Emmons on the show, I have very, very intellect, people who are way smarter than I am, but they're not snobby. They don't look down on people, just because they're very smart. No, I think that's true, but I think that that's also something that is a little, I think that attitude may be a little more common on the conservative side, because we are, because conservatives do not have total control over the quote, unquote, intellectual institutions, right? The less clearly does. So yeah, I mean, look, that's where a lot of that tension is, but it's very, you know, maybe it's not strange, right? Maybe it does really just come down to the fact that she lives in this bubble. And I spent 20 years living in New York City. And if you're not actively trying to, and look, I mean, you're in Boston, you know, if you're not actively trying to seek out something outside of your bubble, you're just going to believe that the people who disagree with you are these barbarians. Right, right. No, you're, you're on the money there. David, I want to ask you one more question. Speaker Mike Johnson, he's dealing with a number of detractors in the Republican party who aren't on board with the proposed foreign aid spending packages. From what we know, as of right now, David, what is Mike Johnson's current strategy? Or does he have a way forward on getting this aid passed? Does it have a chance? And where is a lot of this tension and disagreement stemming from? Yeah, I have found this whole issue to be so incredibly frustrating. It goes back to when Speaker McCarthy was ousted, and he was ousted for refusing to shut down the government. But what he did instead was he said, I'll kick the government open, but I'm not giving you Ukraine funding, Joe Biden, until you do something about the border. That was supposed to be the deal. Right. This morning, Representative Nicole Malayatakis said, Speaker Johnson needs to say to Joe Biden, do something on the border if you want this Ukraine aid. That was always supposed to be the deal. It was never supposed to be generational, comprehensive immigration reform like the Senate bill, but everything got sidetracked, everything got... But listen, at the end of the day, the reason that the only deal that's going to work here is Ukraine aid in exchange for Biden taking action is that if Biden doesn't take action, it's irrelevant what Congress passes. But Congress can pass all the laws that it wants. If Biden refuses to enforce them, it doesn't matter. And that's already what's happening. If the answer to the border is legislative, right, if we can't fix the border without some kind of bill going through Congress, then what is Alejandro Mayorkas being impeached for? The laws are there. And I think it was... To me, it was telling that Malayatakis would do that because she's a team player. She's not part of the leadership, but she's sort of in that world. And I think that's the only way forward. And we have the intimations from Biden's he's been talking about by the end of the month. I'll take some action. So maybe behind the scenes, there's conversations going on, but that's the only way I see out of this. David, I hate to sound ignorant and all this stuff, but sometimes I think it's confusing for people when they talk about, "Oh, we're going to split these into four different packages." Is that what they're planning on doing? Like one separate one for Israel, one separate one for Ukraine with the Democrats ever beyond? I just can't see the Democrats allowing an Israel aid package to go. If they think that perhaps that would put in jeopardy, a Ukraine aid package, which we know a lot of Republicans, including JD Vance, aren't very happy with all the spending in Ukraine. Yeah, I think they'll all pass. I mean, the fact of the matter is there are Republicans who are very loud and very angry about the Ukraine funding. Most Republicans support the Ukraine funding. They're not as loud and they're not as angry about it. So I anticipate that if Johnson is able to get all four onto the floor without being kicked out as speaker, they'll all pass pretty easily with bipartisan support, and then they'll all get packaged into one thing for the Senate. That would be my guess anyway. And really the same with Israel. Most Democrats are not Ilhan Omar and AOC when it comes to Israel. Most of them are a little closer to Richie Torres and John Federman. All right, David Marcus, we really appreciate it. Can you let people know where they can follow you on Twitter, where they can buy your book, which by the way, everyone should read. It's a phenomenal overview of what happened during COVID and the lockdowns. Let people know where they can get all of your stuff. Well, yeah, on X on blue box, Dave, and then, yeah, charade, the COVID lies, the crustination, get it on Amazon or, you know, all those various places. Thank you very much, sir. We hope to talk to you again very soon. We will be right back. We'll take your calls on this. And I also want to go back to this, this conversation that we had had a few days ago. And I was reminded of it in this piece by Mark Hemingway about if anything has shifted in the minds of the anti-Trumpers about like, I'll phrase it in this way. Have the events of the last four years changed any minds or given anyone, maybe a better way to put it is given anyone a bit of perspective. Has it given anyone the sense of maybe it actually wasn't that bad? Or are people just as convinced as they were four years ago that Trump is the worst person in the world and the mean tweets are the worst things in the world? And that even though now we have wars breaking out and inflation and open border, it's still a better option than putting Trump back in the White House. I think that's the question that's actually going to decide the election. We'll be right back. We'll take more of your calls 844-542-42. I'll give you a little bit more information about the jury selection with Karen Reid when we come back. You're listening to The Grace Curly Show. This is The Grace Curly Show. Welcome back everyone to The Grace Curly Show. Today's poll question is brought to you by Flip Lock. You may already have a home surveillance system, but what's going to physically stop an intruder from breaking down your door? The original Flip Lock is the answer. Get yours now for 50% off at the regular price at gracecurlyshow.com and click store. Jared, what is the poll question and what are the results thus far? Today's poll question, which you can vote in at gracecurlyshow.com, is who'll have a harder time getting a fair jury? Donald Trump or Karen Reid? I'm going to say... I think I phrased this wrong first of all, because I don't even... Who do I think is going to have a harder time getting it? I don't really mean fair. I just mean... Maybe like a fair verdict. No, I just mean, who is a better shot at getting people who aren't going to be biased one way or the other? And I guess you could say, well, yeah, that means fair, but in the Karen Reid case, I think she has a good shot at getting people who are on her side. So I don't know if you consider that fair or not. But I'll say, I'll say who has a harder time is Donald Trump. I'm going to switch my vote because... 90% of the audience agrees with you. I mean, he really is someone who... There's a chance you can get a juror who has never heard of Karen Reid. Donald Trump is the most famous person. I think if you Google it, he's the most well-known person on the planet. Like, I don't think there's any... It makes sense. Yeah, there's no one who comes close. So it's like, how do you find... For years, I mean, the guy ran the world pretty much. Yeah, but there have been presidents who have run the world who I don't think have the same level of celebrity status. No, I've been in other countries before. And all the news is always about him at all times. Even now, now that he's not president and even right after he left, everything was still about him. And I think if he doesn't win in November, it's still going to be all his fault. So it's a good reason for you to vote for him because you might as well have him in there. Maybe have your 401(k) doing better if he's going to be getting blamed for everything either way. But here's what the New York Post had to say about Karen Reid. And I'm sorry, this is from the Boston Herald. Excuse me. It says, "The overview was hardly necessary as the vast majority of the potential jurors indicated during basic questioning that they had heard of or talked about the case. A large subset of them, perhaps 20 or 30, indicated that they had formed an opinion on the case. And many of those indicated they were biased one way or the other. It was an early look at the difficulty of seeding a jury in a case with widespread media attention. There was also a lot of protesters outside the courthouse. The judge has decided that they can't be anywhere near like a 200 foot radius of the courthouse. They all have free Karen. I'm sure there's, I'm sure there's Karen Reid signs. I'm sure there's where's Chloe signs. I've seen a lot of these, you know, I don't live too far from Ken. So I've seen a fair amount of these signs and these protesters, these free Karen Reid protesters, and they're very passionate and they want to be at the courthouse supporting her. They've been given now a 200 foot, you know, radius that they can't come in distance of and or if they can't come near. And so far, they've only picked four permanent jurors. So I think it's moving really slowly. Now, an update for you though, which we have talked about before, and if I get Turtle Boy on, which is, I think it's probably a 50/50 shot depending on how how the courtroom is, how fast everything's going today. But what I want to ask him about is that the judge kind of put forward a mixed decision on the third party killer theory, which we had talked to him about before. And we talked to Mark Selena's about this. And it's like, you have to float this idea of, you know, not only reasonable doubt of why Karen Reid didn't do it, but you float this idea of there could be somebody out there, or this could be something else that happened. And the judge in this case said the defense can develop the theory during questioning and in evidence, but may not state it outright in their opening statement. I want to hear what Turtle Boy thinks about that and how much that's going to affect this case. We'll be right back with more. Don't go anywhere. I can't remember crazier times in my lifetime. Now more than ever, expect the unexpected with ReadyWise. Always be prepared. At ReadyWise, their mission is to bring peace of mind to their consumers by offering high quality food and gear at a reasonable price. ReadyWise relentlessly pursues solutions to help you be prepared. Go to ReadyWise.com, intercode Howie20 at checkout and receive 20% off your purchase, or call 895 Ready to speak with an actual person. That's ReadyWise.com. People are home more than ever, and now is the time to clean or update your home with Kennedy Carpet's new luxury vinyl flooring that looks as good as wood. Kennedy Carpet is an old-fashioned company that still answers their phones and sends out their flooring technicians and not a subcontractor. Find out all of the new flooring options they offer today in your home or visit their beautiful showrooms in Needham and Wingham. 1-888-Kennedy. That's 1-888-Kennedy. Live from the Aviva Trattria Studio. Welcome back to The Grace Curly show. Right now on Fox, Senators are being sworn in for the Alejandro Mayorka's impeachment trial. It has moved on from the house into the Senate, and the Senators will act as jurors, and the case will be laid out, and hopefully we'll get some information. I'm sure there'll be sound that will pull. I don't think anything's going to change here. A lot of these impeachment proceedings. I don't want to say they're useless because I think it's always good to expose this corruption and this incompetence, which in the case of Mayorka's, I really, I put more of it on incompetence than anything else. Should we put Mayorka's in as a third option on today's poll question? Who's going to get a fair trial from all the Democrats in the Senate? I'm sure they think he's doing a bang-up job. They're looking at him going, "You know what? We couldn't have planted better ourselves. This is really you've done a beautiful, you're a beautiful, beautiful head of DHS. Talented and beautiful. 844-542. Something else I do want to talk about, though. It's like my least favorite thing. Jared is all these trials because I have to, I have to try to get the legal jargon right, and it's my kryptonite. I can't do it. Any of the normal things that people say, I'm going to mess it up somehow. So I got to be really, really cautious here. So let's move on to the J6 case that the Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments for today. Now, this is Fisher v. the United States. And the really important thing about this J6 case that the Supreme Court is hearing currently is that it could affect hundreds of other cases. I mean, there's so many J6 defendants out there who are still waiting for justice, and this could drastically change what happens in their cases. Now, I want to draw your attention to comments by Justice Gorsuch who was pointing out the fact that because what they're really focusing on in this case is the use of a statute regarding obstruction. And from everything I've read, typically this obstruction statute is typically used for financial crimes. It's primarily used for financial crimes. And a lot of legal experts are questioning whether or not this applies, the statute applies to the actions during the Capitol riot, insurrection, incident, whatever you want to call it. And depending on where you stand politically, that always changes. So one of the things that Gorsuch brought up to the U.S. Solicitor General is how other people could be charged under the same statute if it's used in a way against Fisher. And one person that was brought up was Jamal Bowman, because that comes to mind. There's been so many insurrections lately at the Capitol and in our courthouses all over the country. But Jamal Bowman is one that really sticks out for people, including apparently Gorsuch. So can I get cut seven, please? Beyond saying, okay, C1 does some things, and the whole rest of the universe of obstructing and peting or influencing is conducted by C2. Is that a fair summary of your view? Yes, but there was a good reason for Congress to do it this way. I understand that I understand that. If I might. So what does that mean for the breadth of this statute? Would a sit-in that disrupts a trial or access to a federal courthouse qualify? Would a heckler in today's audience qualify or at the state of the union address? Would pulling a fire alarm before a vote qualify for 20 years in federal prison? Yeah, and you know, I focused on Jamal Bowman, because that was the funniest of all of those scenarios that Gorsuch laid out, mostly because Jamal Bowman tried to claim that he thought that's how you open the door. And in that situation, it's like, okay, so either of these scenarios don't look good for you. You either we're trying to incite an insurrection and obstruct a proceeding in Congress, or you don't know how to open a door. And honestly, dude, I don't like either of those options for a US congressman. I know you're a squad member. I know that we have to keep the bar low for all the squad members, but even so, opening doors kind of basic for most people. And so what I wanted to point out here is that the other scenarios that Gorsuch lays out could apply to so many people. Remember the Tennessee three, the anti the gun rights activists who were disrupting proceedings on the floor of I believe it was the Tennessee House? That was a situation where you could also say, does this statute apply? There's been plenty of anti Israel protests obstructing proceedings. There's been plenty of anti anti how do I put this? Or I guess not anti I guess pro abortion. That's the best way to describe them. Pro abortion activists who've been inciting insurrections over the years are all of those people going to be charged in the same way as these J six defendants? I'm guessing no. And Gorsuch had a response to this solicitor general's report. Can I have cut eight? There are multiple elements of the statute that I think might not be satisfied by those hypotheticals. And it relates to the point I was going to make to the chief justice about the breadth of this statute. The kind of built in limitations or the things that I think would potentially suggest that many of those things wouldn't be something the government could charge or prove as 1512 C to beyond a reasonable doubt would include the fact that the actist Reyes does require obstruction, which we understand to be a meaningful interference. So that means that if you have some minor disruption or delay or some minimal outbursts, my outbursts require the court to to reconvene after after the proceeding has been brought back into line or the pulling of the fire alarm, the vote has to be rescheduled or the protest outside of a courthouse makes it inaccessible for a period of time. Are those all federal felonies subject to 20 years in prison? Yeah, you know, Gorsuch, some people are so calm and they're so smart. And he clearly is falls into that category because he's right. It's like, okay, so you're saying it has to be meaningful, but you pull the fire alarm in Congress. That's pretty meaningful. You pull the firearm. You know what? I got news for this lady. You pull the fire alarm anywhere. You pull the firearm in this building. It's going to be a meaningful disruption to people's day. We're not passing legislation here at this building, but people are getting things done. People are going to have to exit the building. They're going to have to pause. They're going to have to reschedule their phone calls. It's going to be a meaningful disruption. They use these terms like meaningful and it's like, okay, so that's pretty subjective. I guess if you don't consider that meaningful to pull a fire alarm and have to have everyone clear out and then reconvene. And by the way, I would like to know what was the delay as far as January 6 goes? Like, how long was that before everyone was able to reconvene in boat? It was four years. I mean, Grace, it was like the Civil War. Actually, I think it was a couple hours before they got everything cleared out. Don't they vote that day? Yeah. Yeah, crowbar and blue suit. They all got their way back in there to vote. Yeah. All those people were able to go back into the Capitol that day. I know that the blue suit guy had to clean up the trash and there was like soda cans on the floor. But it was still that day, right? So I'm just saying, like even by her explanation of, well, it has to be meaningful. These are all in the same spectrum of meaningfulness in my opinion. And I think Gorsuch would agree. And I just, you hear the contrast between Gorsuch, who is, you know, an actual legal scholar, you know, which is why he's on the Supreme Court and the state prosecutor, who sounds like every other talking head, yeah, speed talking, one of one of Joe Biden's handlers. Yeah. I mean, just, you know, like high school debate class level, and there's not a knock on the high school debate class, but that sounds like that level of debating. Congress reconvened at eight p.m. Okay. So the same day, again, since the Civil War, not in support of January six. I'm not condoning what happened on January. He said, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, all the things I have to say. So there you guys won't get mad at me. But these both seem like disruptions. And in my mind, a disruption is a disruption is a disruption. You know, you got to leave the building. Consider my day disrupted. We'll be right back with Neil McCabe. Don't go anywhere. Follow Grace on Twitter at G underscore curly. This is the Grace Curly Show. What the solicitor general was trying to say to Gorsuch, she was trying to, you know, she was trying to assure him similarly to what Kathy Hochl was doing when there was a big uproar about LaTisha James, potentially seizing Trump's property. And there was a lot of business people, real estate agents or real estate tycoons who were saying, Hey, this is bad for business. Are you guys going to do this to us someday? Are you going to try to destroy our business? And Kathy Hochl was like, no, no, no, don't worry. We're not going to apply this equally. We're going to be applying this to other people. This is just for him. This is exactly what the solicitor general is trying to tell Gorsuch. Don't worry about Jamal Bowman. And you know, the activists, the anti Israel activists, this is just for the MAGA people. That's what makes it meaningful. What makes an obstruction meaningful if you have a red hat on. Otherwise, we can look past it. Joining us now to talk about January 6 for a different reason is Neil McCabe. Neil, this story in red state that you've put up today, I would say is a bombshell. I think it's going to start catching on to other outlets because you have here the Army J6 whistleblower who testified the Pentagon delayed National Guard reaching the Capitol. This has been a big question mark for people about the way January 6 went down. Give us a rundown of what's in this piece and what people can expect. Yeah. Hey, Grace, great to be with you. And you know, you'll recall that, you know, in the weeks or days after J6, you know, we were talking on the air just and we're trying to figure out, you know, what exactly happened. And I was kind of there and I didn't really know what happened. And I think one of the big questions was where was the National Guard? Because everyone just assumed that the National Guard would show up because that's what they do. And, you know, people who are old enough to remember when the Democratic convention was in Boston, you know, there were guardsmen all over the place, you know, and all the T stations and everything. And so what Colonel Earl Matthews said to me and he testified to it this morning was that the President authorized the National Guard to support local law enforcement in the Capitol Police, but because of the law, they have to request it. That request was made around two o'clock. And basically the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Defense, around three o'clock said, "Go for it. I authorize the D.C. National Guard to go to the Capitol." And then they showed up almost at six o'clock. In fact, New Jersey State Troopers showed up at the Capitol before the D.C. National Guard. And it was Army General's, a guy named Walter Rapiat, another guy named General Charles Flynn, brother of Mike Flynn, and of course Mark Millie, who basically stalled and sort of just sort of made it possible that the D.C. Guard never showed up at the Capitol until it was too late. And then at the end, they put out a report and they said, "Hey, we told the D.C. Guard to show up." And they didn't show up and it was the D.C. Guard's fault for not showing up. And that's what ticked these guys off. And that's why they're testifying today to sort of clear their name. Yeah, and there was a big controversy about what Trump, you know, what was in his power as far as the National Guard? And, you know, did he have to ask Bowser, "Do you want the National Guard? Did she reject it? What do we know about that?" Right, so the way the law is is you just can't order the military to be a law enforcement action, right? There has to be a request. If local civilian law enforcement requests the help of the Army or the National Guard, then they can get involved. So that has to be triggered. So, you know, Trump can be watching stuff on TV. And he can say, "Wow, this is crazy. We have to get involved." But if he does get involved, he's broke the law because the military is not supposed to be enforcing laws. It's, you know, these things are, you know, and so basically that's where he was stuck. And if they had given the order, the National Guard was less than two miles away. If, you know, the order came at three, they would have been there at 3.30. And a lot of the insanity would have been stopped. I think Ashley Babbitt would have already been shot by then. But still, I think that there were many people, like on the left, and the Democrats, of course, Bowser's a Democrat, what they didn't want, and this is sort of like in the back of everyone's head, they didn't want Trump to send in the National Guard and then declare a martial law and basically take over. So these people, either rhetorically or sincerely, were believing that they didn't want to create an opportunity where Trump declared himself dictator of America. Now, you, me, and all your listeners know that this is like crazy town. And there's no way Trump was going to do that. But still, this is sort of in the back of people's heads. And Liz Cheney, through her dad, Dick Cheney, arranged for all 10 former defense secretaries who are still alive to write an op-ed two or three days before January 6, basically warning the Pentagon, don't get involved when Congress is certifying the election. So they were basically putting million, all these other generals on notice saying, you know, don't allow yourselves to be puppets of Trump's coup that may be coming. Oh, so, okay. That's an interesting school of thought that they they genuinely didn't want Trump to get that power over fear that, you know, as his authoritarian tendencies would take over and he would become like king of the world versus some people who think they purposely didn't want the National Guard there because they wanted things to get out of hand. They wanted this scenario where they could point to this riot and say, look at MAGA people, look how dangerous they are, look how awful Trump's base is, and you tend to think that it is the first one. Right. There was a group called the Transition Integrity Project, which is a group of left-wing politicals and national security and military people who got together in the spring and summer of 2020 to sort of role play different scenarios of how the election would go. And one of the things that they wrote about in their report that came out, I think, in September of 2020 was that they were shocked about how well the DC National Guard responded to the George Floyd riots. And so it looked bad and it was terrible in DC. But if you look at the context and everything else that happened, basically you took a bunch of Joe's from the National Guard who immobilized for COVID response and running like vaccine stations. And then on short notice they were told, okay, get some riot gear and protect the White House, protect the Capitol. And so the response of the National Guard in DC to George Floyd, basically keeping DC from spinning into chaos, that really shocked the leftists. And they said, wow, if they're this loyal to Trump, we can't trust them if something goes down after the election. Got it. Neil, I only have a little bit of time left, so we'll have to keep this one short. But I do want to ask go and Nancy Pelosi, her name was getting mentioned a lot by Donald Trump by some Democrat detractors who feel that there was a lot of things they're not telling us about January 6. How much of a role did she have in the National Guard in securing the Capitol in kind of calling the shots here? She would have downplayed the National Guard, but she also would have, she also downplayed getting the Capitol police spun up. I believe that she's one of the ones who actually wanted things to spin out of control. So basically she took a dive by basically putting up those ridiculous bicycle rack barriers and basically having the DC or the Capitol police that sort of half-strength. We've seen when they want to put up fences, when they want to protect the Capitol, you see what they're capable of doing. There's no way we saw that on January 6. They wanted to have the appearance of protecting the Capitol without actually doing so. Neil McCabe, this is an excellent story. Everyone go to redstate.com and read this. It's an exclusive. You're not going to find it anywhere else. It's a big, big story. Plus you can follow Neil McCabe on Twitter @ reporter McCabe. Thank you very much, sir. We'll be right back.