The Howie Carr Radio Network
Trump Trial, GDP Revision, and Mayor Wu with Jake Novak | 5.30.24 - The Grace Curley Show Hour 1
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 Trattaria 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 and thank you so much for joining us. It is Friday, Jr. That's right. And that means we have Woke or Joke. We also have a great guest, Jake Novak, joining us at 12.30. I can't wait to talk to him about a myriad of different issues that are plaguing us today. And we have a lot of fun for you ahead. Plus tomorrow for people who are just tuning in and may not know this, we're going to be at the Aviva Trattaria in Hanover. I'm so excited about this. If you didn't get a reservation, just show up and say hi and you can grab a drink at the bar and maybe have something to eat. And it's going to be really fun. There's going to be people moving in and out. So don't be worried if you didn't get a reservation. Just come on by. We'd love to see you. That's at the Aviva in Hanover. There's also a great shopping complex all around there. So you can maybe get some errands done before the weekend. So we are very excited about that. I wanted to start today with verdict watch 2024. That's right. We're in day two of waiting for this verdict. The Trump hush money jury is still deliberating. Judge Juan Merchant read them the instructions again. Seems like for some reason, these instructions are very complicated. It's never a good sign if people are like, can you go over that? That was always me in math class when the teacher would explain something. I'd be the one going, can we back up to the very beginning? Like I'm lost here. That seems to be the jurors. They're very confused by these instructions. It's hard to blame them because these instructions from the apolitical, above, or decent, honorable judge Juan Merchant are bizarre. They're cobbled together. They're nonsensical directions about how you can reach a guilty verdict. And they're clearly biased against Donald Trump. Now, I don't blame these jurors for being confused. I'm confused. I think we were all kind of confused yesterday. And the other part of this that I find amusing and Guy Benson put it really well. He said, this is, this is the choose your own adventure jury instructions. Because as we talked about yesterday, and we'll continue to talk about it today. The judge has said that they don't have to agree on the second crime. So, so this first crime is a misdemeanor that they revived back to life. They kind of, you know, they pulled it up in order to, it didn't matter that the statute of limitations had run out because they had this secondary crime. As long as the first crime was done in furtherance of the second crime, then they could bring it back to life. But the problem is they don't agree on what the second crime is. And that to me would seem like something you'd want to figure out. I would say either on day one of the trial or maybe even if we're being over achievers before you bring something to a courtroom, figure that out. So, this judge is telling the jurors they need not agree on what crime Trump allegedly committed. So, it's choose your own adventure. It's like BK. You know how Burger King always says, happy K, have it your way. If you're in the mood, if you're craving, I think Trump falsified business records. I'm going to go with that one. Okay, well, I think it was tax fraud. I'm going to go with that one. I think it was lecture, why do the jurors have to be the ones deciding that? Shouldn't that be the prosecution that tells them? Like, if I'm on the jury, I'm going, I feel like I'm taking on a lot of jobs here. Now, my mood lighting is one of the prosecutors. Weren't you guys supposed to come to us and tell us what the crime is? Now, we've all got to hang out in the back room and eat our Chipotle and try to figure this out for ourselves, try to map this out. Like, it's some sort of weird puzzle. I've got to come to the judge and tell him what crime I've come up with after listening to Michael Cohen and stormy Daniels in this soap opera unfold. If I was one of the jurors, if I was one of the rural jurors, and I know I said this yesterday, so I apologize for repeating myself, but I would say, listen, I don't, I can't figure out what it was based off Michael Cohen's testimony. Falsifying business records, some sort of election financial problem. I really, it's hard for me. What I will say is I'd be happy to give you a verdict on Michael Cohen admitting that he stole $30,000 from the Trump Organization. That one to me is a little bit more black and white. It could save you guys a lot of time if we just swap that crime in for whatever it is, this big mystery of what Trump allegedly did that has now taken up what six to eight weeks of the presidential campaign season is for this thing that no one can even tell me what it is. It's like Voldemort. This crime is he who shall not be named. And now they're saying, okay, well, you know, you pick a lane as long as you pick one of the three, we can have a four, four, four situation. Before people want one crime and four people want another crime and four people want another crime, that can be unanimous. And I hate to be a stickler for vocabulary. And you guys know actually that unanimous is not one of my favorite words because sometimes they say it comes into the anonymity and then I don't like that. I don't like those words, Jared. It's on my, it's on my whiteboard. It, it flubs me up a little bit. But unanimous if we're going to be sticklers, the meaning of it, the legal definition is agreement of all the persons concerned in holding one and the same opinion or determination of any matter or question as the concurrence of a jury and deciding upon their verdict. So let's look at that a little bit closer now. The matter or the question here has not been established so they can't be unanimous because in order to be unanimous, they need to all come to the same agreement about a matter or a question and they don't know what the matter or the question is that they're looking at. We have a problem. Well, that way they're unanimous and that they don't understand what's going on here. So we haven't a unanimous. I'm unanimous and this is a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a sham. That's what I'm unanimous on. But this is just a complete joke. And now, you know, Fox has the ticker up there. I think we're into like hour six or seven of these jury deliberations. Seven hours and two minutes. And the other part of this too is that they keep coming back with questions. Like they wanted to see David Pecker's testimony. David Pecker, the guy from the National Inquirer who showed up to tell people, oh, yeah, yeah, we buried this story for Trump. We also buried stories for, you know, names, a bunch of other celebrities. And again, he was a little bit of a Michael Cohen figure in the sense that he was supposed to help the prosecution. He ended up, I think, hurting the prosecution's case. And so they want to see this testimony again from David Pecker. They also have questions like I said about the instructions and so I'm thinking about that. I'm like, how does that bode for Trump? My first thought was it's good that they want to at least do a little bit more digging because what I wouldn't like Jared is if the jury was deliberating and then 20 minutes later, we have a verdict that I would know in my gut. Okay. These people hate Trump and they didn't, you know, they're not looking at any of the details. I think the more questions they're asking actually looks better for Trump and that maybe there's some people. Jonathan Turley, I promise once this trial is over, I will stop referencing Jonathan Turley, but forgive me. He's everywhere. I don't know when this dude sleeps, but he's on TV all the time. He said that this would lend credence to the idea that the jury is arguing about something. Like there's some point of this that they're disagreeing on, which again, that leads us to think that maybe there could be a hungry. Now something wild that I did not hear firsthand, but a friend of mine called me on my way in today and said, Alan Gershowitz was on Fox and I don't think he's the only person who's saying this, that if there's one juror who is holding up the guilty verdict and we know Juan Merchant wants the guilty verdict, okay, he's, he's doing everything he can to make it happen. He's bending law into pretzel in order to get the results that he wants, which is Trump guilty. But I did hear that if there's one juror who's holding up the process, that he might dismiss that juror and bring in an alternate, which I understand that at this point, using terms like kangaroo court and banana Republic and, you know, third world sort of stuff, I understand that that is, it's over, it's overdone at this point. I've said it a million times, but that really would be something else. Like talk about admitting that the fix is in. And the other part of this too, and there was a really interesting take on it in the Wall Street Journal about Biden and the reports that he's going to make a statement on this. I didn't think it was reports. I thought it was like an official thing from the White House. But now I'm wondering if he's going to back away from that because the Wall Street Journal and a lot of other commentators on TV have been pointing out that he is getting, even for the White House, dangerously close to openly admitting how political this is. Like he's gotten there before with these little comments he makes like, uh, I heard your fee on Wednesdays and things are looking a little stormy for Donald Trump. He's getting closer and closer as he, you know, declines into the abyss. But for him to get out there and make any sort of statement is going to come off like he's taking a victory lap or like he's, you know, you celebrating the politicization of the, the Department of Justice. And I don't know if at this point it's too late for him to back away from that. I think it would be a smart move speaking of Joe Biden was in Philadelphia. That seems to be the only place he actually campaigns now. Well, it's not that far from Delaware. Yeah. No, he likes to do a little one to stop and he was in Philadelphia. He's having a massive speaking of the Wall Street Journal. They've been reporting on his, his massive issue when it comes to keeping black voters on his side of things. And so he was speaking to black voters and it was, it was really, really not good. And I understand that you're probably thinking, well, yeah, that's what we get now. But he's, he's veered from like pandering, because I'm used to Joe Biden. Listen, I've been more black churches than you all were. I'm used to that. The pandering is, it's part of his stick. But he's left the pandering behind and he's gone full blown. He's going to put you back in chains, Joe Biden. And that's when the alarm should be going off that something's not right. Um, let's go to the callers here before we go to break, uh, Michael, you're up first on the Grace Curly show. What's going on, Michael? Okay. I was wondering if one of the jurors went rogue with Juan Michonne make life miserable for them for the rest of their lives. All right. So here's what, what would happen if there's one juror, and again, I got to give credit to Turley because I wouldn't have known this before, if there's one juror who comes back and says, I don't think he's guilty, but everybody else does. And there's one holdout. Then what will happen is that the judge will, and this is how Turley described today. I'm paraphrasing. It'll basically come at them with like a two by four and say, you guys got to get back in there. A lot of people spend a lot of time on this, you know, there's been a tax money spent. There's been hours spent. People are waiting on this. Do your jobs. You could do this job, get back in there and come up with a verdict. And that is called an Allen charge or sometimes called like a dynamite charge, I think, which is, okay, you can't come up with something well, you better. And then they send them back in. And then that juror, if it's one, which is, I mean, best case scenario, there'd be more than one. There'd be like three holdout, two band together. I think it was Jake Novak who told us that's what he's really hoping for. But if it was just one, it's a tremendous amount of pressure, Michael. I'm not saying after the fact that he's going to make their lives miserable, but in that moment for one person to hold out against the mob of people who are saying, Oh, he's guilty. I don't know how you do that. I, you'd have to really be made of tough stuff. I hope that answers your questions. Called an Allen charge. It seems like it's pretty inevitable. And Jonathan Turley did say he goes, I hate Allen charges because you're really putting that juror in a tough spot where it's like, okay, back down so we can all move on with our lives. And usually they do more often than not. And if somehow that one juror does hold out and they come back with an acquittal, whatever, the bulwark has decided that they're going to make that person's life miserable. Oh, someone's going to be making their lives miserable. Yes. So that don't, don't you worry, Michael, the state will find a way. Hey, because I had the answer for that guy. Do I get to do the S square sound? Absolutely. I think I'm a lawyer too. I just decide. I know that we'll only passing the bar thing going to school, but yeah, who really cares? I mean, Michael, I have an oddie pass the bar and he's in jail now. So why don't you just trust me? I'm not like the others. We'll be right back. I see we got people on the lines who want to talk about this. We'll take your questions. If I can answer them, maybe you can answer some of my questions. We've all got questions. We're like the jury in this case. We've got all questions. No answers. We'll be right back. This is the Grace Curly Show. Welcome back, everyone, to the Grace Curly Show. We've got a lot of people on the line who want to talk today. But first, let's do the poll question. Today's poll question is brought to you by Calatren. Do what Jared did, lose weight in a healthy way with Calatren's high quality collagen protein, specially formulated with digestive enzymes to help your body absorb the collagen protein to its fullest potential, save 50% on a 30 day supply at gracecurlyshow.com and click store. This is a great deal. 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, will we have a verdict in the Trump trial by the weekend? Yes, I think we'll get one tomorrow. 65% of the audience agrees with you, they say yes, 35% think it will stretch into next week. Okay, awesome. Let's go to Mark, your next step on the Grace Curly Show. What's going on, Mark? Hi, Grace, why does Trump lie all the time when he does those press conferences? I'd like to cite some of them, would you like me to list those out? It depends. What's the point of it? Biden lies too, so we're with two options of people who don't always tell the truth. Welcome to politics. Are you going to cite all Biden's lies as well? Was Trump not allowed to call in witnesses because the judge didn't let him? Hey, Mark, I had a question for you first. Are you going to cite all Biden's as well? Biden's an old confused man. Okay, but wait a second, those are our two options. Are an old confused man who lies or a guy who's not confused who occasionally lies? So I would choose the one who had a better economy, a better border, the more world peace than the guy who, as you said, is old and confused, the Robert Herr excuse, and everything's going to, you know what? That's the one I would choose. We've played this song and dance before where it's like, he lied about this. Okay, what next? What next? There are options here and I like one and you like the other. So you have to make a case as to why your liar does a better job and I'll be honest with you, Mark. I'm looking around right now. Doesn't seem like you have much of a case there. Is it acceptable to say that the DOJ tried to assassinate him? Mark, is that like a responsible thing to say? Mark, do you think it's responsible that Joe Biden goes to black voters and says if they storm the Capitol on January 6, Trump wouldn't be trying to pardon them. Do you think that's a responsible thing to say? Do you think it's responsible for Joe Biden to say when he entered the White House inflation was at nine percent? Is that considered a lie, Mark? Or is that what aboutism? I might not allow it to ask about Joe Biden's colossal lies that he talks about every single day. Is there any bigger lie than saying you won the election a million times when you. I don't know. Ask Hillary Clinton. Ask Hillary Clinton. Ask Stacy Abrams. There's plan. Ask Al Gore. You ever ask those people about it or you just ask Donald Trump? Again, all these people do the exact same things when it comes to lying, when it comes to bending the truth. When Biden does it, it's shaving off the troop. When Trump does it, it's a lie. Here's the big difference. When Trump ran the country, things were going a lot smoother, Mark. That's what I care about. Do you care about that? Do you care about what they actually do? Or you just care about hating Donald Trump? Trump will try this country off a cliff and you're too stupid to say it. He didn't do it the first time, Mark. Things are working a lot better. And if this is how smooth and steady things are under Biden, I'll take my odds on Trump. We'll be right back. Live from the Aviva Trattria studio. Welcome back, everyone, to The Grace Curly Show. I'm so excited to have on our go-to when it comes to all of the craziness going on in the world, especially with this Trump trial. That would be none other than Jake Novak, who joins us now. Jake, the big story right now. Is this decision by the judge that the jurors in this case do not have to agree on the second crime? If four people think it's one crime, four people think it's another, four people think it's another, he's saying, Judge Juan Merchant, that's enough to come to a unanimous verdict. Now, I would love your reaction to this. I know you have very strong feelings about judges and about some of these intellectuals in New York, so the floor is yours. Thanks, Grace. Well, what Judge Merchant says, let's not, let's not ignore the elephant in the room. It's not only these decisions that he's making and these instructions. The big deal is that he's confusing the heck out of this shirt. I mean, this is like the worst thing you can do on a date, you know, like not only does your date not know whether you like her or not, but she's not really sure what the hell you're saying. I mean, he's really confusing the heck out of them. And I think that we're going to see more and more requests from this jury to have things read back to them, more and more times that they're going to have to come back into the courtroom. And honestly, he's lost control of the jury. I mean, I think that he had hoped to have some control of them. In my opinion, I think he was really hoping that they would deliberate a short time and come back with a quick conviction. And now, I think that they're, this whole thing has really gotten off the rails because as I said to you a number of times before, this guy isn't the sharpest tool in the shed. Not many municipal judges are in this country. You need to stop thinking of them as these great jurists and smart legal minds among the people who think that his jury instructions, he didn't even write them. He read it as if he hadn't even written it himself. And so I think that's in play. But let's not forget all of this. It's definitely the instructions he's giving grace are helpful to the prosecution. There's no denying that. And that's scary because it's too helpful to the prosecution. But let's not forget the main story here, which is he has left this jury extremely confused right now. And it's looking worse and worse for him as a judge and everyone should not, you know, ignore that. Yeah. And my next question for you was going to be and you answered it a little bit there. But when when you're looking at a case and a jury and you just mentioned how confused everyone is, and I think that's a really important point, Jay, because it's not just the jurors who are obviously the most important people to have some clarity in this. But also, I watch a lot of, as I'm sure you do, a lot of Fox in the morning, a lot of newsmax and there's people who I tend to go to who can take complicated legal matters and kind of distill it in a way that's easy for me to digest and easy for me to talk about with my audience. And those people who I usually go to are on TV today saying, I don't really know. This is unprecedented. We never seen this before. It's hard for me to explain it to people. So the people that usually can unpack this for the public, they don't even understand it. Now, when you have a jury coming back and asking again and again to have the instructions reread to them, or as you said, just cited by Juan Merchant, they're asking questions about specific testimony when it comes to David Pecker, does that tend to bode well for the defendant or for the prosecution? They are confused, but they are at least trying to figure it out to the best of their ability. Yeah, I mean, I'll preface this by saying I still think that this jury is going to convict Donald Trump, but I think it is a little bit better for the defense. Let me do Judge Merchant's job for him for a second here, because this is what he should be saying to the jury. He should be saying, hey, to explain this 4-4-4 thing, to say like, look, you all should be able to agree that, let's say, Donald Trump had a good day at the beach. Four of you can say he had a good day because he played paddle ball. Four of you can say he had a good day because he swam, and four of you can say he had a good day because he got some ice cream. If that's how you do it, I mean, that would be a great way for him to have explained it, but he doesn't apparently have the ability to do that. Again, precisely because I think he's not making a lot of these decisions himself either. So he probably doesn't understand it either. Einstein said that the true sign of genius is when you can explain a complicated topic to someone clearly. That proves that you really understand it. He doesn't really understand it, which is why he's in trouble. So I would say that these questions that they're having basically helps the defense because this could lead to a mistrial. If they need to come back every five minutes and ask this judge what the hell is going on, eventually he's going to run out of lifelines. Who knows who he's calling to get help to explain to them. And there may be a mistrial if this continues in this way. I'm not predicting that right now, but a few more of these, and I'm going to say, wow, this is so off the rails, no one is going to be able to hide this. And Jake, we just had a caller who had a great point. He said, if there's one juror, and we've heard about from the bulwark in other places that there is one juror who seems to be a little bit more sympathetic to Donald Trump, you can take that with a grain of salt. It's the mainstream media reporting it, but let's say we do have that juror who says behind closed doors to the other people there, listen, I don't think he's guilty of this. You can't convince me otherwise. And then they come back out, they tell that to judge Juan Merchant. He gives them an Allen charge. Typically, does that person feel, is there a lot of cases where one person will be willing to grind this whole thing to a halt in order to follow what they believe, or what usually happens? Does the person usually cave and say, okay, the judge told me that I have to come to some resolution with the rest of these jurors. So I guess I'll give in and give you guys what you want and give you a guilty verdict. You know, I have some personal experience with this. I was once on a federal jury, and we came to a conviction verdict really quickly, and the judge said he wanted to talk to us. And we were all worried, we thought the judge was going to yell at us for coming to such a quick verdict. And he said, I just want to thank you. The previous jury had one lunnik, that's a Yiddish word for someone who just basically doesn't change their mind about anything, who wouldn't change their mind. So my answer to your question is, I don't think there's anything that the judge or the other jurors can do to change someone, if they came into the process with their heels dug in. In other words, someone who is always going to be that way. However, if it's someone who's just being a little bit questionable now because he, if he or she is worried about going back to their family or their cocktail party and explaining what they did, then they can be. So it's really the answer is, I need to peer into the psyche of this person, if there is such a person, whether they were coming in this way all along, this is their personality, their whole life, just someone who really likes being obstinate, or is it someone who's just trying to be careful. I think all the jurors are trying to be a little bit more careful because they're thinking about their lives after this case. They're thinking about the questions they're going to have to answer from people in their lives. And I think they want to at least appear like they've deliberated a little bit more. But if it's someone who's a nudnik from the beginning, who's just going to give a heart and then there's nothing they can do to change their mind. I was wondering that too, is do they just want to appear like it's on the level? Oh, see, we didn't just come to a quick conclusion. We're really looking at, you know, crossing our T's and dotting our eyes. That was something I was afraid of. Jake, I want to switch gears here because we have a lot to cover. I'm speaking with Jake Novak. And one thing we love to have you on about is the economy. There was a recent report out that the GDP was revised down to 1.3% growth rate as opposed to what we got originally, which was 1.6%. I would love your take on this first quarter report, the revision down and also where you think the economy is at right now. Yeah. Well, this is really scary for the Biden team because I said to you before, nothing is worse for an incumbent president than inflation. It's even worse than unemployment because inflation hurts everybody, whether you have money or not. And now on top of it to have a slowing economy, you've got a real problem. We had inflation, for example, in this country, everyone knows about the '70s inflation. We all know about it. Nixon, Ford and Carter. But, you know, we had bad inflation in the '60s too. But in the '60s, the economy was growing. So somebody like LBJ could get reelected. Somebody like LBJ had a chance to get reelected even in '68, even with the war going badly. Now you have a situation where it looks a little bit more like '70s inflation, right, where the economy is not growing so well. And that is going to be a very, very bitter pill. And it's one of the reasons why people keep getting some of these issues about Joe Biden and his strength or lack thereof with voters wrong. And yesterday, everyone was focusing on his appeal to black voters. And why are black voters so upset with him? The answer is inflation, inflation, inflation. And for him to talk about Donald Trump wanting to gas them or whatever, I was like, isn't going to work. He needs to come up with some kind of message on inflation. I'll give him credit because it's hard to come up with a good message on inflation. It's not easy. I wouldn't say it's easy to do. But he needs to address it. That's why he's losing his popularity. And if the economy is also not growing and we're in a '70s situation and not a '60s situation, he is really, really in trouble. Even if he somehow gets reelected, they'll have absolutely no wiggle room as president after that. It'll be really, really difficult for him. Yeah. And I think his team, Jake, and I never really thought of it in that way, but I think his team goes to certain demographics and assumes they're one issue voter. So he goes to black people and he assumes, okay, if I talk about racism, then that will move the needle. He goes to women and he says, if I talk about abortion, that's all they care about. That's going to be the thing that trumps everything else. And you're right. It's insulting to voters because if you're a black voter out there and you're saying, okay, but what about the economy? Like stop trying to fear longer about what's going to happen as far as Donald Trump tear gassing me if I go to a protest. What about my wallet? I care about that too. It kind of shows you the blinders that Joe Biden and his team have on where they look at these groups of voters and they assume they know what their number one issue is. And I think that I think you're right. I think they're very off on that. There's something else at play here, Grace. After the state of the union, the Biden team clearly came up with this mantra, angry and mad Joe Biden and scary Joe Biden is better than incoherent Joe Biden. Joe Biden is incoherent. Most of the time he's a little less incoherent when he's angry and yelling and being scary and they have decided I think it's clear now every speech he's making now is doomsday stuff because that seems to get him a little bit. He at least speaks at least I can hear him. I don't think he's being coherent because it's not still not logical, but it's coherent. I think that this is absolutely I'm not kidding. I really think this is a campaign strategy. Get him angry. Get him fired up and he's not going to get fired up to say, well, we're going to reduce inflation. He's going to get fired up when he says we're going to put you in chains or they're going to send women back to, you know, to the to the stone ages, but that's basically what's going to work for them. And I think that that is a campaign strategy with Biden's persona. Yeah, it's old man yells at clouds, at least when he's yelling at the clouds, he seems pretty focused. Jake, one more thing I wanted to talk about and I'm surprised. So I get this this message from you on Twitter. You said I'd really love to talk about mayor Wu in this story out of Boston for people who haven't heard this. I'll read you the Fox News headline. I'm sure a lot of my listeners in New England already know Boston Democratic mayor says criminal should not be prosecuted for theft. Gang registry should be abolished. Now Jake, mayor Wu is already in Boston. She is one of those political figures who gets both sides very angry. Like I found that to be the case where I can be talking to real old school Democrats and they say, Oh God, she's she's terrible. So she does have that power. I call it like the Bill de Blasio factor where she brings people together in her incompetence, but you specifically wanted to talk about this story in regards to Los Angeles. Can you tell us a little bit about that? Yeah, you know what, listen, we've all you and your listeners have all heard about these soft on crime mayors and stuff. We know all about that. And that's that's definitely not something to be glossed over, but there's an other aspect of this story that I think everyone needs to understand this isn't just about being soft on the criminals. It is now morphed into a hostile attack on the cops and I don't mean a rhetorical like Oh, it's be fun. The police. I mean, literal physical personal attacks on the cops, but it's been going on in LA for the last couple of years is an attempt to dock police officers, let people let these activists who hate cops know the names and addresses. It was a scandal last year in LA where someone in the LAPD quote unquote mistakenly sent to one of these groups that face pictures and bios of everyone in the LAPD, including including the undercover officers. Now this new gang registry thing and this new push in Boston includes another push for many of the officers have had any kind of complaints made about them also to have their identities revealed. This is not about being such soft on crime. This is about helping different groups, drug cartels and other people know where and how to attack and kill police officers. This is what's going on. It is a definitely new thing and there's a scandal going on in Los Angeles, not only about the case I told you about, but there's someone who was working in the sheriff's office to become the number one deputy for the LA prosecutor, the district attorney, her name is Diana Tehran. She took the personal files of a bunch of sheriff's deputies with her, obviously at the request of Gascon and the other people in the department who want to know these people's identities, basically expose them and put them in danger. Again, let's move past just the soft on crime stuff. We are now dealing with individual cops who are being targeted. I feel I'm worried that this LA trend is now moving to Boston and maybe it'll even come to New York. It's not in New York yet, but it seems to have come to Boston now and I'm really upset about it. Well, that is what we like to do here. We like to look, you know, across the country and say, "Where's something?" Oh, okay. So in California, that idea is failing in a major way. Let's bring it to us. Let's see how it plays out here in Boston. That's kind of the routine here. Jake Novak, we love having you on. You're able to cover so many topics. Can you please tell people where they can follow you on Twitter and where they can subscribe to your substack? Yeah, Twitter X, I'm Jake, Jake, and Y, and the substack is really easy. Jake Novak.substack.com, daily stuff on all these different topics. I have too many topics. Maybe I should only focus on one, but then Grace wouldn't call me, so I'm happy doing lots of topics. Whatever you're doing, it's working. So don't stop. Jake Novak, thank you for coming on the show. We'll be right back. We'll take your comments, questions on any of the topics we just hit, plus we have so much more to get to, so don't go anywhere. You're listening to The Grace Curly Show. This is The Grace Curly Show. Welcome back, everyone, to The Grace Curly Show. I'm not going to try to get into one of my big stories here because we don't have a lot of time. I'm going to save the Biden comments that he made to a group of Black voters in Philly for after the break, really, really abhorrent stuff. Even for Joe Biden, this was particularly classless to look at a group of Black voters and tell them that Donald Trump, he just lied. He told, you know, that last caller was saying, "Oh, lies, lies, lies." He told a lot of whoppers. He repeated the debunked lie about Trump tear-gassing BLM protesters so that he could go to mass. That was not true. That's been debunked. And not debunked by Grace Curly or Howie Carter, debunked by the Inspector General's report on the incident, but that doesn't matter to Joe Biden. We'll get into all of that coming up. I also have a cut from Representative Jamal Bowman about Hamas, which I think is worth playing. It's not getting as much coverage just because of all the trial stuff, but it's definitely worth talking about. Something I wanted to give a little update on is this whole flag situation, flaggate, featuring Supreme Court Justice Alito, who is refusing to recuse himself from the January six cases because his wife decided to fly two different flags. One of them was the American flag upside down and one of them was the appeal to heaven flag. I just want to go on the record here and say, "Thank you, Justice Alito, for not recusing yourself because recuse will seem to only go one way." I'm so sick of every time a person, if you have any sort of common sense, if you're maybe able to see things with a different POV from, let's say, Kamala Harris or Joe Biden, you have to recuse yourself from everything. He didn't fly the flag upside down or fly it, period. So he doesn't have to recuse himself. And if you don't like it, ladies of the view, then lump it because I don't really care. When I hear of Republicans, he has to recuse himself, no, Democrats never recuse themselves. I was thinking about this today because somebody, one of Trump's people made a mistake, wrote a typo or said something and was getting a lot of grief and I thought that's another thing that Trump really did bring into the Republican world that we had never factored in before, which is stop apologizing. The goal, if you ever say something, if you lie, as that last caller said, about how many people were at an event, you'll be called the liar. Now if Joe Biden lies and says, "When I came into the White House, inflation was at 9%, that's totally fine. You can do that as long as he wants," and you know, "It's not going to get repeated over and over again unless you're listening to this show." So if you do say something and the left loses their minds over it, let them because they don't want an apology. You can grovel as much as you want. These people are never going to be happy. And so I love that Justice Alito is like, "No, I didn't fly the flag. I'm not recusing myself. You don't like it kick rocks too bad." I'm sure that the more liberal justices on the Supreme Court, Katanji Brown Jackson, and others, would not recuse themselves for not flying a flag in a stupid flag controversy. Well done Alito. We'll be right back. (upbeat music)