Showdown
Showdown Episode 64 5-17-24
(upbeat music) - Welcome to Showdown, I'm Mark Casein, and actually I'm two minutes late, and the only reason that this happened, and I really, I'm sorry about it, but I just, well, I didn't have to do it, but, you know, I set up in my yard. I hung a flag from my house upside down, but I have to admit that I didn't really do it. Actually, my wife did it, it was her fault, and because she was messing with the flag, and I was trying to get it turned upside down, and anyway, it all ended up, yeah, two minutes late, sorry about that, but at least Sam Alito understands the problem. I mean, he recognizes full well how horrible it is to have your wife messing with the house, turning your flag upside down when you don't even know what's going on, you're trying to write important Supreme Court decisions, and sure enough, you got a wife turning flags upside down for no reason, I mean, it just doesn't make any sense. I don't know what to do. In fact, I do know what to do. What Alito could do is he could talk it up around the Supreme Court and see if he can get some support for reversing the 19th Amendment, because the heck with these women, I mean, if they're gonna turn flags upside down for no reason whatsoever, just because the neighbors are acting up, well, don't even give them the vote, just take it all away, enough with these women. What do they think they're doing? Who do they think they are? So of course you know the story. The story is pretty simple. Justice Alito puts his flag in front of his house and turns it upside down. Now, normally we know that an upside down flag means distress, but in 2021, when this was done, it happened to be the exact time when Joe Biden was being inaugurated three days later. And then on top of that, and this is just, this is so ridiculous, on top of him being inaugurated three days later, everybody knew at the time. I mean, this was well known that the upside down flag specifically supported the insurrectionists in Washington, DC. So on one hand, Alito was absolutely supporting the insurrectionists, and then furthermore, he was doing it with three days before the inauguration. And of course, he's now been caught three years later, front page article in the New York Times splashed all over the times. It's the main article of the day, right in the center on the top above the fold. If you read a newspaper, which I understand that people don't, but that's where it was. And at any rate, here's where he is. He's got a problem. Now I realize he's not worried about his problem because, and you know, I'm not somebody that believes in conspiracies, but this isn't a hidden conspiracy. This is a wide open conspiracy. This is an attempt to take democracy away from the United States. This is an attempt to turn the United States into a friend, a partner with Russia and China. So you'd have Russia, China, and the United States with Vladimir Putin running the show with Donald Trump quietly, and I used the word the last couple of days for the people who follow Trump, but now I'll use it for Trump who follows Putin, and that is obsequious. What a great word for Donald Trump. He is an obsequious little scared nobody, a loser who is on trial and who will face the jury, starting next Thursday, most likely. So here's just a quick rundown on where we are in the trial. When we come back on Monday, Cohen will probably be on redirect. It depends. It's possible that the defense could ask a few more questions, but the thought at this point is that they won't. So then comes the redirect, and the question is how much redirect will there be? And the reason that that's in question is because some people say that there's no sense in even bringing up the business about the telephone call, and I hope you know the story, that they found a one and a half minute phone call that possibly Cohen may have mistaken for another call. And so his explanation of what happened in that one and a half minutes might not be correct, but it might be. Cohen says it is, they say it isn't, and most people sort of think that Cohen had himself confused, but it's not gonna change the trial. The trial is about paperwork and corroboration by other people of every detail that has been brought forward by Michael Cohen. Now, it's true that Cohen could have made a mistake about the call that he was questioned on, which wasn't even an important item in this overall trial. The defense was simply making the point that if Cohen made a mistake on this call, well, maybe he made a mistake on all the other calls too, maybe he made a mistake about everything, and in fact, maybe he was just lying. But the problem is, you can say those things, you can jump up and down, you can raise your volume like I did, you can do all of that. But then you're gonna run into a problem. And the problem is, is that everything that he has said that pertains to the case is corroborated by paperwork and by other people. So Michael Cohen might be the biggest liar on the planet, which we know he's not, because if anybody lies more than him, well, certainly it's Donald. I mean, we know how Donald lies, and I guess that was why the two of them were together. They loved each other in that they respected the way they lied for each other. Of course, you will remember that one minute before Cohen flipped, that was very clear, they were best friends, and had been for a very long time and worked together, everything was great. And then the moment that Michael Cohen said, "Donald did this." Oh, Donald never heard of this guy. Who's Michael Cohen? Oh, you mean that guy that hung around and did a little work for me once in a while? And I didn't even want him to do the work, but he did it anyway. Yeah, that guy, right. Okay, so we're dealing with a lot of craziness, but no trial today, and then Monday, probably the end of the testimony. It could be wrapped up very quickly on Monday. Then on Tuesday, you're gonna get both sides, giving their summations, and that'll take all of Tuesday, Wednesday, no court, and depending on the jurors, there's some question as to what some of the jurors might have to do, somebody might have a pressing engagement they might have to ask the court for a day off or something, and if that happens, then they may have no trial on Thursday. But if there's a trial on Thursday, it's going to the jury. And if it goes to the jury, there could be a verdict one week from today. And I think everybody would agree on this. If there's a quick verdict, if it goes to the jury on Thursday, and the jury comes back Thursday afternoon or Friday morning, Donald's cooked into him. He's done, you know how they say, get the fork out, he's done. That could be very quickly by the end of next week. We could be one week away from finding out what happens to Donald Trump, and I will tell you with all the certainty that I can bring to a microphone, Donald Trump will be found guilty. And everybody can tell you stories about why it could go this way and why it could go that way. But honestly, the people who are honest, who are fair, not like me, I'm not being fair, I'm just telling you what I think, this is just my gut. Sure, I want it this way, but it's more than that. I want it because it's right. But the people who are trying hard to be fair, they want to show you how fair they are. Those people are saying it's probably good for the prosecution, it's probably going that way. But there's always the potential for one juror to look at it all and say, I have a little doubt. So that's possible, I understand. It could go that way, but probably not because the stories that are being told about how ridiculous or how uncredible Michael Cohen seems to them. Well, first of all, most of those people are not in the courtroom. And secondly, they're not really looking at the facts. And I've read some of the stories. I try not to, but I read them just quickly so that I know what is being said. And I can tell you right now what's being said by people like, and this is the best one, take the Washington Examiner. I mean, the Washington Examiner is a ridiculous excuse for a newspaper. I mean, it's a newspaper, but when it comes to telling stories about what's happening in Washington, they just make it up. They lie, they don't tell the truth. And then they go from one lie to a conclusion based on that lie that is ridiculous. Anyway, if you want to know what's being said in support of Trump, read the Washington Examiner. It's the best one out there because they really make an effort to sound like a real newspaper. No, they're not, but they make an effort to sound like it. The real newspapers, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, you know, and the Wall Street Journal's conservative, but no, they're not going to be crazy. They're not trying to ruin themselves for the next century after being this fabulous, highly respected business paper in America for over a hundred years. They don't want to wreck it. So they play it right down the middle. They tell the truth. Not on the editorial page, they can do what they want. They can act crazy there. That's fine. But the Washington Examiner acts crazy on the front page. And I can just tell you that the credible news sources in this country all agree that Donald's best chance for getting out of this thing in one piece is a mistrial. One juror who thinks that there's a little bit of doubt, that's his best chance. Okay, maybe so. However, having said all of that, let's go back to where I started, which is Justice Alito, because this is really beyond pathetic. I mean, aside from the fact, when I say pathetic, I've got to talk about all these VP wannabes who are up in New York, wearing those idiotic blue suits and red ties like Donald and just looking foolish, looking foolish, acting foolish and breaking the law on top of it. I mean, they break the law. Well, Alito is also breaking the law. Sort of. There isn't exactly a law or even a rule, or even a requirement that a Supreme Court Justice be honest and fair. It's just not required. Supreme Court Justice can do anything. There is nobody that can hold a Supreme Court Justice accountable, not one person. If you catch them breaking the law, that's it. They can do it. Now, maybe murder. That might be a problem. Again, I'm no expert on this, but I know a lot. But maybe a Supreme Court Justice is getting trouble for murder. But just, you know, for doing what they're not supposed to do, for taking a side in a case or for promoting a political position across the country, well, that's the kind of thing they can't be in trouble for. And in fact, nobody can really accuse them of it. I mean, they can, but not in a way that has any teeth, nothing that can really put any pressure on a Supreme Court Justice to do one thing or the other, or to even recuse. You know, everybody hopes that a Supreme Court Justice, that is part of a case where they've been involved in the same issue before, that they would recuse themselves, that they would step back and let everybody else vote, and they would not participate. But you can't make them. The Supreme Court Justice has to decide, is this a problem or not a problem? And if it's a problem, and they don't want to admit it, and they're viewed by the public as doing the wrong thing, just doesn't matter. And it may matter to the overall perception of the court, but it doesn't matter in terms of whether you would get in trouble or not, because you're not allowed to be biased, but you can do it. You can't be stopped. And that's something that's being discussed right now. How in the future do we hold these people accountable? And, you know, Senator Blumenthal from Connecticut has been running around the shows in the last couple of days, saying that what we ought to do is the same thing that we do with all our other agencies, which is a point, an inspector general, an IG. There are IG's all over the place for every different agency that we've got, for every branch of the government, for every area of governance in this country, we've got IG's. They are supposed to keep an eye on what's going on to be sure that everybody's following the right procedures, that nobody's breaking really the law. And that in fact, that they're not hiding either information or bias or some sort of connection to a case or a bill that's being voted on or any of that that would be improper. They're not supposed to allow it, they're supposed to be whistleblowers. But there is no such thing at the Supreme Court. And so Senator Blumenthal is saying, let's set it up. Let's put an IG out here in charge of this. So if you've got a Supreme Court justice who's got his flag turned upside down and that flag being turned upside down comes three days before an inauguration and people around the country are using that upside down flag as a way of expressing the belief that Donald Trump has won the election and that Joe Biden is not a legitimate president, then maybe somebody needs to step in and tell Justice Alito to recuse himself from any further cases that are connected to January 6th. So what are they gonna do? At the moment, they're gonna do absolutely nothing. They're just gonna sit here and they're gonna live with it because they just don't know what to do and they can't generate any real enthusiasm for a change. So it just keeps rolling along and that's where we are. And we've got a Supreme Court that in a lot of ways we can't trust. And when you say that you can't trust the Supreme Court on May the 17th, on Friday May the 17th, it's an interesting day to say that because it so happens that this is the 70 year anniversary of Brown versus Board of Education. This is the 70 year anniversary of ending Jim Crow in the United States, ending segregation and insisting that everybody be treated the same. Now, you know, it's an interesting thing to study this because in the first place there were five votes in favor of Brown, which is all you need. And there were four votes against Brown. That is four people on the Supreme Court who felt that segregation should be maintained and that basically Jim Crow laws should be allowed. People should be separated. People could be separated on trains. People could be separated in schools. People could be kept apart for no reason except for the color of their skin. Well, by five to four the Supreme Court was ready to proclaim that those days were over. But the Supreme Court Justice at the time who was the brand new Supreme Court Justice at the time, he replaced a man named Fred Vincent who was very conservative and very bad. And Fred Vincent was so bad that he allowed the Rosenbergs to be executed for delivering the atomic bomb to the Russians. Now here's the thing, they didn't. They certainly did deliver some material information to the Russians, and I say they, maybe not they, maybe just the husband. It's possible that the wife had nothing to do with it. But in any event, the Rosenbergs as they said, they fried, they did. They went to the electric chair and that was the end of them. Great story about them by the way too. And if you've got an hour, go get your hands on something called air to an execution. And this is a program done by, not CNN. Anyway, you don't need to know this, it's just done, it's there. Air to an execution, it was done 20 years ago, a very good documentary on the execution of the Rosenbergs and it was produced by the daughter, the granddaughter of the Rosenbergs. She did it, young lady who had a sister who also was in on it and the sister was a lawyer and they both had grown up thinking, we could be lawyers in order to make sure that nobody ever does to anybody else what they did to our grandparents. But in any case, you might take a look at that on your own, but the important part here is, is that the Rosenberg case was allowed to go forward by Fred Vincent, who was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court at the time. And then shortly after that, Earl Warren became the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. And Earl Warren was picked by Eisenhower. And Eisenhower in later years said that Earl Warren was the biggest mistake he ever made in his life, because Earl Warren had been a conservative governor of the state of California, a Republican. And Eisenhower thought, this is a safe pick, I'll have myself another Fred Vincent. But he didn't, because it turned out, and this is an amazing thing about the Supreme Court, it turned out that Earl Warren was not only the opposite of Fred Vincent, but he was actually the most liberal Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in history. And during the time from 1954 into the early 70s, when he was on the court as the Chief Justice, Earl Warren, it's amazing all the things that happened, which tie directly into all of the anger that exists in the United States today. Every bit of it, I mean, everybody agrees, Earl Warren started the culture war. He did, because he took the country, and the first thing he did is, of course, he said that black people have to be treated right, and the country really lost its mind at that point. In fact, the country refused to follow the decision of the Supreme Court. They just said, "No, we won't do it." They didn't say it, they just wouldn't do it. They just didn't, that was it. So as a result, the Supreme Court came back two years later and did what they called Brown Two, 'cause Brown One went nowhere. They came back with Brown Two, and they said, "Look, we're not kidding. "We really mean it, and what we want "is we want this done with all deliberate speed." And those words did convince Dwight Eisenhower that he had no choice, and that he had to allow students to go to school in Little Rock. And of course, we know today the Little Rock Nine who were protected by federal troops. But all of this comes right off of this 70-year anniversary of the 1954 decision, Brown versus Board of Education. Just a landmark decision. And by the way, just so you understand how bad the situation is out here, if you go right now and pull up an article by Amy Coney Barrett, who of course was put on the court by Donald Trump, and who is really, in a lot of ways, not the worst of the three people he put on the court. But if you go and read what she wrote, you could find it very quickly by just going in on Google, go to Scholar Google, and you'll find it. And you'll find an article that she wrote for a law review back 20 years ago. And in it, she said that there are a lot of cases that were decided in this era that I'm talking about that were wrong. She said, but you know, at this point, they're part of our law, and we can't mess with it, we shouldn't mess with it. So, you know, here she's so nice of her. Isn't this cute, very sweet of her? She says, you know, we shouldn't mess with Brown, even though it was bad law. Bad law, but okay, leave it there. Let black people have what they've got, because we're gonna cause too much trouble if we try to mess with it. I mean, that's a true, read the article, it's in there. And then she goes further. Maybe we shouldn't mess with the separation of church and state, even though that's decided wrong. And maybe we shouldn't mess with Miranda. Maybe we shouldn't mess with Miranda. Maybe we should just keep giving people their rights, even though that was decided in a way that was according to her improper. Again, all of this is based on textualism, which is a really funny idea, because you know, or should know, that the Supreme Court doesn't adhere to the text of the Constitution anyway. Not in any case. The Supreme Court decides what it wants. And then it makes up a story, sometimes, if you're on the right, sometimes that comports with the idea that we should only base our judicial decisions on textualism. But you know, if you go back and read the Second Amendment, you know, a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, yeah, go read that. And you tell me in there where there is anything that says you have the right to a gun. There's not, there's not, there isn't a word in there. A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state. Given that, the people, the people, they're right to bear arms, should not be infringed. Based on the well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, by the time you're through with it, I mean, if you can find a way to torture that language into meaning that everybody has the right to a gun, you're pretty good. The Supreme Court never did that. They never convinced anybody of that. All they did is said, well, you have a right to keep them bear arms and that means you have a right to have a gun. But that isn't what it says. It's not about that. It's about a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state. And if you asked anybody, what's the second amendment? They wouldn't know those words. All they could tell you is you got a right to a gun. Oh, well, not true. But it becomes true when the Supreme Court votes by five then it is true. 'Cause you know, four members of the court said it's not true. Well, five to four, the five win. And while the five won, they did win millions of our people have lost, millions of our people have lost. They've been shot with guns. Their relatives have died of gunshots. Parents have lost their kids because of this lunacy. And it continues to go on. Because somebody claimed out of those five people that you've got a right to have a gun. You don't. But five people say you do, so you do. And that's the way it works. So here we are, we've got a culture war because, or a war and changed our country. All kinds of things. Griswold versus Connecticut said that nobody can go into your house and find out whether you're using birth control. I mean, you could be four against birth control if you want to be, either side if it doesn't matter. That's not the point. The point is, Connecticut wanted to go into your house and find out what you were doing. That's a problem. At least the Supreme Court said it's a problem. They said, no, you can't just go into a person's house to find out what they're doing. No, you can't do that. Maybe you don't want to, maybe you want a law that says you you shouldn't have any birth control. You can do that, maybe. Probably keep doing it today. But the point is, not whether you're four against that. The point is, do you think that the government should have a right to go into your house to see what's going on, or how's this one? Should the government go into your house as they wanted to do in Virginia? In fact, they could do. It was the law. Could the government go into your house and find out if a black and white person were living together in your house? Because if they were living together or if they had become husband and wife, if they were married, well, you go to jail. In 1970, the lovings, but the lovings went to court and they loved the result because the court said, get out of here. Get out of these people's life. They can choose whoever they want. The funny part about that is that you've got somebody like Clarence Thomas who was married to a white woman who has hinted that it might be a good idea to go back and take a look at all of that, which would include him and his wife. But don't get too concerned about all of this because Clarence Thomas and his wife are up to no good. Really big trouble. And so is Sam Alito and his wife turning their flag upside down. And of course, again, we'll just end with this on this point. The flag was upside down. He was caught three years later and the defense was very simple. You cannot be angry with him. You can't expect him to recuse himself on any cases because there are related cases that are coming up and we'll talk about one of them here when we get back from the break. But I just want to make this clear. Amazingly, these people are telling you that it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter at all. And the reason it doesn't matter is because I, Sam Alito, didn't do it. Sure, the flag was out in front of my house. But it's not my fault. My wife did it. It wasn't me. So that's the answer. That's where we are. And we've got some bad Supreme Court justices and we've got no way to go back and take a look at people who are being extremely biased on the court and I may get into that again with a little alien cannon talk after the break. But listen, here's the deal. It's 440 and we're rapidly running toward dinner time and that means wenties. Wenties is at 18500 Chesterfield Airport Road and they've got all kinds of great food which you can not only have tonight, but you can have it all weekend long. You can spend all weekend binging at wenties. It wouldn't be a bad idea. You can have chicken wings. You can have smoked meat. You can have certainly hamburgers and patty melts and cheeseburgers and all kinds of good food. However, you can have pizza, which is great. And then, in addition to that great pizza, how about the baby back ribs? You know, my favorite? And how about the onion rings? Phenomenal. That's why I say, just don't even worry about it, just go to wenties. That's all, just go. They're at 18500 Chesterfield Airport Road. Ben, of course, is there in and out. You can go and visit him as well. But you don't want to just see Ben. You want the great food at wenties. And don't forget coming soon in Defiance, Missouri. That's still wenties, still the great food in Defiance and in Chesterfield, wenties. Now, if you're looking for great jewelry, great opportunities to buy jewelry, to design your own, or to go and find new designs by people who are extremely creative. Well, you need jewels on Hampton. And that's 4506 Hampton. And of course, that's Al and AJ. And they are great owners of this terrific jewelry store where they buy and sell coins and jewelry. They will sell you jewelry like you would in the mat. I mean, if you go in and take a look at their shelves and shelves and shelves of jewelry, it's just great. It's interesting. I mean, if you're interested in jewelry, this is the place to go. If you want to sell your jewelry to Al and AJ, they'll do that too. And they'll really go as far as they can to give you a very, very good price. And they're going to beat everybody else because that's just what they want to do because they want you to keep coming back. Because they want you to love jewels on Hampton. You're going to love them. They're really nice people. They got a great jewelry store. And they repair watches. It's really important, especially somebody like me with my 45-year-old Seiko Gold Seiko watch that I've got. Just, you know, 45 years, things break. But it doesn't matter if you've got jewels on Hampton. 45-06 Hampton, Al and AJ. They're there waiting for you right now. And speaking of waiting for you right now, you can go buy yourself a suit. And I mean, nice suits. It's the St. Louis Suit Company in Clayton. And that's on the corner of Forsyth and Central. In Clayton, they've been there 29 years. They are great. They're 29 years. It's a reason. They're selling suits. They're doing great. They're doing well. They're making money. And they're serving the community and you. The St. Louis Suit Company in Clayton is just a terrific place to get dressed if you're a guy. And if you're thinking about getting married, that's a great place to go St. Louis Suit Company because they're experts in providing wedding services for the man and the people on the man's side. And I can tell you right now that you can get, for example, overcoats for the winter, straw hats for the summer. They've got shirts. They've got ties. And listen, if you don't know yet about the $5 silk ties, well, you're just not listening or you're not going to Clayton because I can tell you right now, their ties are amazing. So go to the St. Louis Suit Company in Clayton. You can look for Jay and Nick. And they will, along with the rest of their family who's there, they'll help you get yourself into a brand new suit and everything else that you want that goes along with a suit, except one thing. I'm just so sorry to always have to tell you this, but it's the truth. They don't sell chucks, but they sell everything else. So go there, foresight and central, right on the corner, go right in and upstairs, the St. Louis Suit Company in Clayton. You'll love it. Okay. A couple things going on, actually, there's a lot going on today to tell you the truth. You know, Russia has deployed in outer space a special satellite which they're using. Well, right now they're not using it for anything nefarious, but there's a belief and we pretty much know what's going on. There's a belief that that is up there so that they can turn it into a method of delivering nuclear weapons against our satellites in space. And I have to tell you that they could do amazing damage up there because we sort of live based on what's traveling around the world in space. The least of it is GPS. There's much more. I mean, we really, we live on it. We depend on our satellites up there. And Vladimir Putin's got one now up there that he's thinking about fitting in a different way so that he can use it to shoot nuclear devices at our satellites. I mean, where do people come up with these stupid ideas? And especially because here we are today on the day when Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, they got together and they came out with a joint communique. And here's what they said. They said nobody can win a nuclear war and therefore we should never fight one. But you know, it's just like Donald Trump. It is so much like Donald Trump that it's really pathetic because this is the same man, Vladimir Putin, who last week and the week before and the week before said that he is seriously considering launching nuclear weapons against Ukraine and then against the United States, you know, his ICBMs, which, you know, he's got 6,000 nuclear weapons over there, which, you know, you can probably destroy the entire world with maybe 10, 10 of those 50 megaton giants and you could probably blow the whole planet up. But 6,000, you could blow it up a whole bunch of times and he knows that. And that's why I've said there's really no worry from this. But we shouldn't even have to hear it. The man shouldn't even be saying it. It's just bad business. It's bad business if you're, if you're Xi Jinping and you're trying to, to do business in the world. Now you can't do that. That's crazy. And so Xi Jinping got together with Putin and the two of them came up with this idiotic statement, which anybody should know. And that is don't fight a nuclear war because you can't win. And I guess Putin just feels like he's got to go along the same way that Donald feels like he has to go along with Putin. So on one hand, China, under this new world situation, China could be in charge with Putin and the Russians and all the other countries in the world, including the United States under Donald Trump, that we could all be under Xi Jinping and the Chinese could make lots of money. And we would just obey orders. We would no longer be a democracy because we're headed that way anyhow. Certainly if Donald were able to win this election, which he's not, wait until next week, wait until we get until up till Friday. I promise you, when we get to Friday, this conversation won't even mean anything hardly, but I'm just saying this. This is what they want. And who would give into it? Who would do that? I don't know. I mean, Donald, sure, he would, just like he says, he could end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours. Well, how do you think he could do that? Ukraine isn't giving up their territory. And the Russians know what they want. And in fact, they're pushing really hard right now. Here we are on Friday and Saturday and Sunday are coming there. The Russians are pushing very hard to get everything they can. And the reason is because they know that finally, finally, way late, the United States has turned over the money and the weapons to Ukraine to fight back. But the Russians figure this is our shot. There's nothing there to block us. Let's get what we can get. And then maybe we'll win. The only thing anybody can hope is that the United States has given enough and quickly enough so that Putin won't be able to get his way. But let me add to that something that is a little disturbing. Disturbing to me anyway, when I heard this morning and I hear all day long, people talking about NATO sending trainers into Ukraine to help them to quickly get up to snuff with this military equipment that we have given them, well, that worries me. And not for the obvious reason. The obvious reason would be is that it would make Vladimir Putin angry and he might want to retaliate. But there's another reason. The reason is is that I remember 1963 and 1964. And don't say, "Kason, you're only 12 years old. What do you know?" Well, I do remember it. I remember it well. I was very much into all of this. I had parents and friends' parents. And we were all at Teach-ins at UCLA and all over Los Angeles. And we learned a great deal about all of this. And so I know. I know it firsthand. And I can tell you that we kept saying, "Don't worry. All we are is trainers. We're training the South Vietnamese." But then when it became apparent that the South Vietnamese couldn't win, then we decided to become more than trainers because we already had our feet in the door. So I'm just saying this. Maybe that wouldn't be the result. But be a little fearful because this has been done before this trainer story. And listen, it's not Joe Biden who is responsible for this. It is the Republican Party who brought us here because the only reason anybody's thinking about what we can do to help the Ukrainians in a more concerted way is because we held back all that equipment, all those munitions, everything that they do, where the Russians are now in a position to try to blitzkrieg their way through Ukraine. That was Hitler's language. And thereby hope that there wouldn't be any weapons coming from the United States that could even be used against the Russians. I mean, that's their hope. And that's what they're trying. And of course, we're pushing back in a lot of ways, but we're also pushing back with this trainer story. So it's something to think about. And it concerns me a little bit, just a little. But I guess the real thing that concerns me is something else. And I've talked about it during the last week. And it's this new Joe Biden business, which is really just following up on Donald Trump, but it's the tariffs. And the tariffs bother me. And I told you why the other day. And I'm going to say it again. And I'll probably say it again and again. And if you don't know what this means, go look it up on Google because there was something in the 1930s that we called the Smoot Holly Tariffs. And pretty much good economists today agree that those tariffs really made that depression a thousand times worse and probably made it the depression that it actually became. The tariffs were a mistake. They are dangerous business. And here we are setting up these tariffs. And if you think it's a coincidence that at the exact time that we have put these tariffs into effect, that Russia and China are meeting in order to come up with a way to fight against the West, even if not physically, which still that danger of course because you've got fighting going on physically right now. But the real problem is what if they do other things? What if they got plans, for example, to try to take down our grid? I mean, the United States can't operate without electricity. Trust me. We can't do it. And there are other things that they can do too in a cyber sort of way which would endanger our security dramatically. For example, blocking our ability to deliver food to our grocery stores, which again, they can do all the things that we do in this country are computerized. They get into those computers and start messing with it. It's trouble. And the reason that they're being encouraged to do this is that we're putting some real big hits on them. And believe me, we're also hurting ourselves because these these tariffs are attacks on the American people, but they are also a way of stopping not so much the Russians because the Russians hardly sell anything anyway, but the Chinese. That's the problem. So you know, you want to sit here and make people crazy and hurt people where you can do it, but then you better look back and think about what they might try to do in order to retaliate. Maybe the Russians can't do anything with their little one trillion dollar gross domestic product that that tiny little economy that they have that's smaller than Texas and smaller than California. So or the same size as Texas and smaller than California. It's not good. I mean, Russia's a disaster. Some really interesting stories out today that you might want to take a look at about the demographics in Russia and in China as the United States heads towards what could soon be 400 million people currently 320. The experts are saying Russia, which is now gone from 150 to 130, 130 million that by the time we go to 400 million, they could be down to 110 million. Well, somebody would say, oh, that sounds good. We're beating them. We're growing. They're contracting. Big problem. That's exactly why Vladimir Putin is running around Europe trying to grab up all these people because that's the way he wants to grow. So, you know, when you think you got it made, be careful. Things don't always work out the way you want. That's why when we did what we did after World War I to Germany, we got it kicked right back into our face. But after World War II, we did something much different. We gave them all the money in the world so that they could rebuild their country after we tortured them, blew them up, smashed them, but we had to because they were trying to do it to us. But at any rate, you know, people need to think. They need to think about what their great solutions are and what the consequences can be of those solutions. And when you see what those consequences have been in history, open up your eyes, figure it out. Don't be stupid, and we are in many ways being stupid. And I hate to tell you that in this case, it's Joe Biden who's part of this. And speaking of stupid with a couple of minutes left, let me say that if you saw what happened in Congress yesterday when the oversight hearings, which are horrible in themselves because the Republicans are nuts, when they got into a fight and they did get into a fight. AOC, Congresswoman Crockett and Marjorie Taylor Greene, I mean, they were all screaming at each other and acting crazy. Now, you know, maybe AOC could have calmed herself down a little bit, but she got emotional and upset over the craziest things being said by Marjorie Taylor Greene. I mean, she is a nutcase. And in the end, shouldn't apologize for any of it. But what she did is she finally agreed to have all the words that she put into the record struck from the record, removed from the journal that carries everything that goes on in the United States House of Representatives so that it wouldn't be there for history. But certainly it was there when they were all screaming at each other and it wasn't just the three of them. In a short period of time, it expanded out to all of them yelling at each other. And it's just a bad look. It's a bad look for the United States of America. And I promise you that all of this is being brought to us thanks to Donald Trump, just like this show. Showdown is brought to you by WENTIES and Jules on Hampton and the St. Louis suit company. And I'll see you on Monday with Ray Hartman. You'll be here in the studio. I'm Mark Case, and this is Showdown. Good night.