The Howie Carr Radio Network
Taylor Cormier: Pre-Retrial Date Set for Karen Read & 2A Tuesday with Toby Leary | 7.2.24 - The Grace Curley Show Hour 3
The Norfolk County D.A.'s office quickly called for a retrial in the Karen Read murder case, though most onlookers, including guest host Taylor Cormier, don't understand how they'll possibly do it over. Then, Ammo King Toby Leary joins the show to discuss the latest court decisions in a handful of firearm cases.
- Duration:
- 37m
- Broadcast on:
- 02 Jul 2024
- Audio Format:
- mp3
Today's podcast is brought to you by the Thunderstorm air purifier. Bogo is back for one week to order. Go to eat impuredeals.com and putting code word Grace Bogo. Live from the Aviva Trataria 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. You don't want too much Grace. Here's the millennial with the mic. Grace Curly. Grace Curly. Grace Curly. Let's bring in the host of the Grace Curly show, Grace Curly. You either have Grace or you don't. Especially Grace. Grace stand up. Grace Curly. Oh boy, who needs enemies when you've got friends like Jim Clyburn? I haven't watched the video, but he was just on MSNBC with Andrea Mitchell saying, "I will support Kamala Harris if Joe Biden were to step aside." Well, just last week, I was just punching up Joe Biden saying how great he's going to be during this debate. He's at the top of his game. He's just taking the same notes that Joe Scarborough had, basically. Then he came out after the debate and said, "Well, it was obvious what happened." He was too prepared. He was way too filled in on what was going on. He couldn't really articulate what the issues were in the best way, because he just knew too much. The man who knew too much. That was Joe Biden according to Representative Jim Clyburn. And now he's just throwing him under the bus saying, "Well, if he gets out of here, I'll support Kamala Harris." Who needs enemies when you've got friends like Jim Clyburn? 844-542-42. I want to move away from the national politics for a few moments here and go over what happened yesterday in the Karen Reid trial again. The jury came back, I think this was the third time and declared themselves, or actually asked the judge to declare them a hung jury and declare a mistrial. And that's exactly what happened. We're told there are at least two holdouts, possibly definitively two holdouts. We may never know. One of the alternate jurors was interviewed and said that they would have been a not guilty vote. Absolutely. I believe that. I think we don't know what shenanigans took place in the days and minutes leading up into initial deliberations where the jurors were shuffled around. There was that one who was caught on camera and who was brought out to discuss a personal matter with the judge. It seemed that a lot of these jurors had personal matters that went before the judge and they were excused from the jury on the Karen Reid trial. But ultimately, this was declared a mistrial. And I'm still perplexed as to how you could get this so wrong, how at least two jurors could get this so wrong given the instruction, given what your job is as a juror. And I'm sure, well, I would hope that they were given strict definition. This is not a feelings over facts. This is facts over feelings. If you feel that there, if there is reasonable enough doubt, one spot of reasonable doubt in this entire case and it's essential to the case. You've got to vote, not guilty, but at least two didn't feel that way. This, however, was taken as a victory by the defense. Alan Jackson, David Enetti, Ms. Little for Karen Reid. And obviously it is in a way that, well, I mean, this was the state's one big shot to get everything out there that they could and present it in the best way. Alan Jackson, the premier star attorney, said that's not exactly what played out, though. This was him on the steps of the courthouse yesterday, cut one. Folks, this is what it looks like when you bring false charges against an innocent person. The Commonwealth did their worst. They brought the weight of the state based on spurious charges, based on compromised investigation and investigators and compromised witnesses. This is what it looks like. And guess what? They failed. They failed miserably and they'll continue to fail. No matter how long it takes, no matter how long they keep trying, we will not stop fighting. We have no quit. Alan, you're going to stay on? Go ahead. Yeah, he was asked if he was going to stay on and he didn't respond to it. But to me, it sounds like we have no quit. Sounds like he's going to stay on if he can, if his schedule allows. But he also said something else there. It's kind of colloquial and nitpicking by me to look at this the way that I'm looking at it. But he said the Commonwealth did their worst. Now, if you're ever using that expression, you're usually saying it. They gave us everything they could. They tried to take us down as hard as they could and it just didn't happen. But when he says that they did their worst, they did their worst. They brought out the sleepiest assistant DA. They brought out the worst witnesses, the worst testimony. They brought out the worst evidence. Everything was as bad as it could be. There was no worse in the state's presentation of the alleged facts in the case against Karen Reed. They did their worst. David Yanetti is brought on next and he thanks his client and the supporters and echoes Alan Jackson's sentiments cut to. I just have two things to say, folks. Number one, I am in awe of the strength and courage of this remarkable client that I've had the privilege of representing since day one. And number two, I want to send a message to all of her supporters out there. Your support was invaluable. We are touched and we ask for your continued support. I'm not from Texas, like my colleague here. I'm a Boston kid, but I'll repeat what he said, which is we ain't got no quit. We ain't got no quit. And that sounds like David Yanetti is going to be staying on with Karen Reed through the retrial that they're going to have to do if the state is really adamant. It was amazing that Michael Morrissey at 10 minutes after Judge Beverly Canoni, the courtroom had not even cleared and the DA's office, Norfolk DA's office is sending out press release is saying that we fully intend to retry this case, which is baffling at the least. You couldn't get it done this time around and the facts aren't going to change. You've got what you've got. It was handled how it was handled. There's no bettering this situation. There's grand jury testimony before the feds. There's all kinds of nothing changes. Actually, that's not true. One thing has changed since Michael Morrissey made that statement yesterday. And that is the essential firing of the lead investigator on the Karen Reed case. Michael Proctor, he is gone. He is out of the office. He's on what amounts to have paid vacation, but he is still employed by the Massachusetts State Police. They had a statement yesterday and they came out. Interim Colonel John Mon Jr. said that Proctor was removed from duty effective immediately and will be transferred out of the detective unit assigned to the Norfolk DA's office effective Sunday. Although Trooper Proctor is still employed by the department, the decision to relieve him of duty means that he can no longer work cases or function as a trooper during this time. He is under an internal affairs investigation. At this time, the investigation is ongoing. And he's proctor is involved in several cases, another murder case as well. Turtle Boy has had some run-ins with the suspect in that case as he was jailed for a few moments. But this is absolutely bonkers that you can say that you want to retry this case, knowing full well that the lead investigator is under an internal affairs investigation by the MSP. And then he is ultimately fired, not completely, but ultimately all but canned. And you're going to retry this case and give the defense the further ammunition, not that they needed any, the further ammunition that the lead investigator is no longer assigned to the DA's office because of his conduct on this specific case, because of the mishandling of the investigation. Quote, these juvenile unprofessional comments, this is from Proctor during the trial. Had zero impact on the facts, the evidence, and the integrity of the investigation. That's laughable, absolutely laughable. There is no way that the state is going to have a better case. So yesterday after this news broke, or maybe it was possibly early this morning, I'm not sure exactly when. No, it must have been this morning. NBC Boston reporter Kathy Curran decided to pay a visit to the Proctor home. And she found Michael Proctor and his wife outside of their home. Turns out they are, they're actually very friendly people. I don't know what this stuff was, who this person was that had a hold of Michael Proctor's cell phone was texting in this group chat that Karen Reed had a leaky balloon knot and that she was, was, had a weird fall river accent and no ass. I could not have been Michael Proctor because the people that I saw on TV this morning were just the essence of humility and grace and poise and friendliness. Everything you'd want in a next-door neighbor is Kathy Curran approaching the Proctor house cut three. Trooper Proctor, Kathy Curran from NBC 10. We'd like to ask you some questions. Do you think your actions impacted the outcome of the trial? I'm not on your lawn. I'm on the street. Do you have anything you'd like to say? Do you support your husband? She first of all said the wife Mrs. Proctor said get the bleep off my lawn. That was muted out. But then she continued to say get off my lawn when Kathy Curran wasn't even on the lawn. She was on a public street or sidewalk. And then she said, you have anything to say? And she said, I fully support my husband who called Karen Reed, the man who called Karen Reed a whack job, a nutbag, and the R word made references to her medical conditions, her fall-riverish accent. And also, probably the worst of it all, hoped that Karen Reed would just kill herself. And you know what? He was probably right. That probably would have been the best outcome for Trooper Proctor because he wouldn't have had to sit in court and have it revealed to the world what a garbage thing that he is, this swamp creature, basically, of the messages at state police. That would have been a secret to this day. Still baffling that they're going to try this again. We'll see if that changes before July 21st, if they change their mind. Maybe Lally misspoke in court. And the DA's office had to go along with that for the time being. We'll see. Time will tell. 844-542-42. Get on the line now for 2A Tuesday. We'll be right back with Toby Leary from Cape Gun Works. I'm Taylor Cormier. This is The Grace Curly Show. You're listening to The Grace Curly Show. This is The Grace Curly Show. Today's poll question is brought to you by Perfect Smiles. Don't be fooled by imposters with similar names. If you're unhappy with your smile, you need to visit Dr. Bruce Houghton in Nashua. Call 844 a perfect smile or visit PerfectSmiles.com. Emma, what is the poll question and what are the results thus far? Today's poll question is, does yesterday's SCOTUS ruling on presidential immunity help or hurt Trump's re-election chances? It helps J6 and documents cases won't see the light of day or it hurts. Dems are more panicked than ever that Trump will be an evil dictator. I think it helps more than anything else. 88% of the audience agrees with you. They've boosted those numbers, went up from 83 at the first vote. If you want to vote in the poll question today, go to gracecurlyshow.com and vote there. You may have to scroll down a little ways if you're on a mobile device, but if you're on a desktop, you should be on the right-hand side of the webpage. Now, it is time to welcome to the airwaves Toby Leary of Cape Gunworks for two-way Tuesday here on the Grace Curly Show. Much to discuss today, the Supreme Court, their chutin' off rulings and dismissals pretty quickly as their term is coming to a close for the summer here. What's going on, Toby? What do you want to hit on first? Yeah, thanks, Taylor, for having me on. It's been a busy couple of weeks since I last talked to Grace on two-way Tuesday. We had a Rahimi case come down in the wake of the argiel decision, which wasn't a great two-way ruling. It was not even a really a two-way case for the most part, but government was upheld that they can continue to temporarily disarm people after a finding by a court of dangerousness. They also kept out a very narrow decision and left some stepping stones for future challenges, which I think is very encouraging, but they really, I think, broke from the Bruin methodology that they set out in 2022. And Thomas was the lone dissenter in that decision, and I think his decision was excellent as well as dissent was excellent. Basically, he said no one wants dangerous people running around with firearms. He goes, but the thing that Rahimi did is punishable under Texas law by 20 years in jail, like charge him with a crime and convict him on the overwhelming amount of evidence that's out there. So that's the right way to do it, not to bend and hope and try to coerce or thread the needle of the Second Amendment to apply to people where it shouldn't. So we have that kind of in the rear view mirror, which leads the door open to future challenges. One of the challenges that the Supreme Court kind of GVR'd and remanded back to the lower court is a case called Daniels that is basically the same exact thing that Hunter Biden was convicted of, which is lying on a federal form and being denied your right to keeping their arms because you're addicted to an illegal substance. So that'll be interesting to see where that goes. So what was the question in that one? What were they trying to? I mean, what was the talking point there? Does anybody disagree that if you're a known drug abuser, and you're addicted to a substance that's mind-altering, you shouldn't have firearms? Well, you've got to remember what the Bruin decision set out to do. And it looks at the plain text of the right. And then if there's no provision in the plain text, then the government has the burden to prove that there is an analogous law at the time that the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791. So what's that mean in English? So what that means is, if there's no law in 1791 that would prohibit a drunkard or someone like that from going down and buying a gun, then you can't apply that today. And this is why a lot of people are freaked out about that, but that's the right way to look at it, Taylor, because if you think about it, all you have to do is be on the wrong side of whatever the government says is wrong, and they can disarm you. So yes, on its plain face, we say, like no one wants illegal drug addicts who are messed up on drugs to be able to acquire firearms. There's other provisions in that, but no one wants to apply the law for the actual thing that they broke in this day and age. And that's the problem. For 240 or 230 years, I'd say for the last 20 years we're really broken from actually locking up violent criminals in this country. That's how it worked. Like when a criminal would do a bad or evil deed, they would be convicted and sent to prison. You wouldn't have to have subsequent laws in order to prevent further crimes being committed by that same individual. Exactly. And really those laws, all they really do is prevent people who end up on the wrong side of whatever the government determines is that behavior being prevented from owning a gun. And that has far reaching effects. So all right, we've got to take the break. Toby, we'll pick this up on the other side. This decision of the Supreme Court to return this to New York, or a lot of other stuff too. If you've got questions for Toby, 844-542 or text in, we'll be right back. Live from the Aviva Thratria Studio. Welcome back to the Grace Curly Show. It is 2-8 Tuesday right now with Toby Leary from Cape Gun Works. 2-8 Tuesday is brought to you by Eastern Security Save Company, New England's largest safe source. Eastern Security Save has gun safes by Fort Knox, safe and browning gun safes, offering an economically priced safe that still offers quality, not offered in big box stores. Protect your Second Amendment rights. Go to easternsecuritysafe.com. Mention you heard about them on 2-8 Tuesday and receive 5% off your entire safe purchase. And they've got safes that, well, entry level, all the way up to James Bond kind of style stuff that you might need in your house. It's really cool stuff. We've got to meet the experts podcast with Eastern Security Save. You can check out as well. And Toby, by the way, we should mention that you're out in Hyannis, Cape Gun Works is how can people reach you? Yeah, thanks, Taylor. We're right in Hyannis on Airport Road. You can go to CapeGunworks.com and shop our online inventory. We also are starting to update each and every week. Easy to read list of used guns that are in the shop, which is nice because you might be looking for something that's not made anymore to complete your collection or something like that. And you can follow us on social media at Cape Gun Works. And my podcast is @RapidFireRadio. And we do that a couple times a week. We're here, and we're on WXDK on Sundays, from one to two, excuse me, from noon to one every Sunday. So that's a couple of ways you can follow along with what we got going on. Awesome. Well, we left off just before the break, talking about some of these Supreme Court decisions or rather indecisions as they kick some of these cases back to the lower courts, including the one with the same law that was used in the Hunter Biden case. Did we wrap up with that one or did we have a little ways to go yet? Well, no, that one's pretty much wrapped up. I was just going to say that a lot of these cases that look like on their face their good law, I'll point out how they are applied in a bad way. So you have this Brian Range case, which is a very similar case to the one that we just talked about, Raheemee. It's, I believe it's U.S. Code 98922G8, I believe, instead of G1, which is the Raheemee case. And the range case is a guy who was not a violent felon. He like, you know, 20 years ago, lied on a child support form or something like that and ended up becoming a convicted felon. And now he's a prohibited person. He can't go by a firearm because he lied on a federal form back, you know, 20 years ago on some issues with his child support. So, you know, and there's people out there who are like, good, he's a jerk. He should have paid his child support, but really he's not a violent person. And so we even have that standard here in Massachusetts. I certainly don't endorse drunk driving in any way, shape or form. But if you were to get a first offense, OUI, I had a lawyer on my show that said 90% of the time you're going to get your license back within 10 to 20 days because they want you to be able to drive back and forth to work, right? So the very thing you offend with, you're going to be able to get your driver's license back, but you're now a prohibited person for life, even if you leave the state of Massachusetts because that conviction carries a two and a half year sentence. So this is a bad application of what people want, which is to disarm bad guys. We all want to disarm bad guys. And there's ways of doing that without making these blanket laws that are catch all and that jam up people who don't need to be jammed up. And the state knows that when they make these laws, and that just proves that they hate the fact that you can arm yourself and defend yourself, and you choose to exercise your right to keep them bare arms. And their ultimate goal is to figure out a way to disarm everybody. So, Toby, what's a good compromise, though, in that case, if you have somebody lying on a federal form such as Hunter Biden, who I would argue does have or has the capacity to have violent tendencies, where you have somebody that's just lying about what they're paying in child welfare, child care costs or taxes, even, for instance, something that's completely nonviolent. Where's the middle ground? Well, I think it goes back to what the founders intended, and that is someone does something wrong and violates the law, charge them with how they violate the law. We have these laws that we try to make stronger every year by saying, "Oh, if you kill a police officer, that's going to be a double life sentence." Well, how about we just have a death sentence for everyone who commits first-degree murder? That makes more sense to me. And by the fault you disarm the guy in the process or you put him in jail forever, he's not going to have guns. The point I'm trying to make is, if you've done your time, if you've paid your debt to society, you should have your rights restored. And if you haven't, then why are we letting you walk the street? Because if you're too dangerous to own a gun, you're certainly not too dangerous according to the state to drive a car, own a knife, have a baseball bat, have a rope or a nunchocks or a samurai sword, right? So if you're truly that evil that you're a threat to yourself or somebody else, you need to be locked up. But the point is, we don't do that anymore. And we're just trying to say, "Oh, because that guy over there is a real bad guy, now we've got to create a law that affects the people we don't need to worry about." And that's the problem we have in society today, these blanket laws that affect everybody and the people that you don't need to worry about, for the criminal acts of a few. And that's how we don't blame the people who actually commit the crime anymore. We just try to disarm everybody in the process. So by the way, 844-542-42, if you've got a question on anything to do with the Second Amendment or firearms or the operation of your firearm, what it needs, how you can upgrade it, anything like that, give us a call right now and Toby will give you his free advice over the air on your question. There was also a gun ban that was supposed to come up in the state of Illinois and assault weapons ban to use the colloquial term, assault weapon, but that was also kicked back to the lower courts as well. And Clarence Thomas was very adamant about his, he disagreed that it should be kicked back to the lower courts. Yes. Clarence Thomas needs to be preserved at all costs, in my opinion. The man is a modern day genius when it comes to law. And by the way, we desperately need an assault weapons ban case to be taken up by the Supreme Court. It is long overdue. There's too many states that are trampling on people's rights. And the bottom line is, they, right at this point, Thomas is right. They have treated the Second Amendment as a second class right for far too long. And he's like, it's time we make this right. Now the good news is they GBR all six of these cases. So they sent them back to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to get it right. But Thomas's strong language in the dissent was, hey, if the, I'm looking at you, Seventh Circuit, if you screw this up, we must take this case. So, and really how they would screw it up is to not apply that ruined methodology, which really affirms Heller methodology from 2008, when the court ruled that no gun that is in common in ordinary use can be banned, period. But here we are in Massachusetts still having the most common gun in America banned. And even Sonia Sotomayor agrees that the AR-15 is in common use in her dissent of the Cargill decision. So, and then Justice Katanji Brown just acknowledged that the the Bruin methodology is the law of the land. That's the way we're going to look at all second, Second Amendment cases going forward and that's the way it should be. So with the, you know, I'm just a pedestrian street level observer of these type of things, Taylor. And for me, it's like, I can't go buy the gun that is the most popular gun in America because why? And where does Congress get the right to ban those guns? There's no provision in the law. There's no provision in the Constitution for them to ban any gun that is, you know, for a person of the people that is in common in ordinary use. And the fact that they do it is abusive power. They might, you know, have the power to do it, but they don't have the authority. Madison wrote about that in the Federalist Papers, '49, constitutional limitations of power. And they've been getting it wrong for a long decades and decades. And the Bruin decision set the record straight and set that straight. Now, we also saw the whole Loper Bright case on Friday that the Supreme Court ended a 40-year, ad 40-year term of deferring to these three-letter agencies. So this is how ATF has got away with the, you know, bump stock ban, the pistol-brake ban, the frame and receiver ban. For 40 years, they've just made up the rules as they go. And courts have had to defer to their expertise. And now that's all gone. Thank God. And courts are going to, you know, the balance of power is backed the way it should be in the Supreme Court or in the courts, I should say. And they're going to ultimately decide on those type of cases instead of having a three-letter agency, an unelected bureaucrats decide the fate of people who, you know, run afoul or their rule change and have felonious implications when they go to jail. That's good. I imagine that, like, listening to those arguments is a lot like listening to elderly Congress people talking about how the internet works. So they just don't understand how it goes. Let's take a call here, Toby. Jim, you're on the air with Toby Leary from Cape Gun Works on 2A Tuesday. Go ahead, Jim. Yeah, Toby. Justice Thomas once said that only the Second Amendment, only your Second Amendment rights can you lose for life on a misdemeanor charge. No other right you lose for your entire life. And he said, how is that? Why is that? Right. No, it's exactly right. You, you know, you don't ever surrender your right to go to church or to speak at an event or to, you know, have Fourth Amendment protections or to not incriminate yourself. But if you, as I just mentioned, that misdemeanor, which we call a mista felony here in Massachusetts because it actually carries a two-and-a-half-year jail sentence for a misdemeanor, which is technically the definition of a felony. But anyway, I digress. And yeah, so you commit a misdemeanor through a prohibited person. And this is exactly what the anti-civil rights, gun-heating congressmen in our state love and the courts have backed them up because of government interest, that whole interest-balancing approach, which is all gone. Now it's strict scrutiny. They have to look at the text. They have to look at the tradition in history. And if it isn't there, they can't ban it or they can't restrict it. And a lot of decisions are going to come down the pipeline in the next, I predict, next 10 years that are going to be very favorable to the Second Amendment. And they're going to explode over it because things like licensing, the anti-it case that they, GVR, back to the Second Circuit today is one that is a huge case about sensitive places and all the, you know, licensing and stuff like that. So there's a lot of cases to watch. I would say it wasn't a great day for the Supreme Court today because of the cases mostly got remanded back to the lower courts. But the message was sent loud and clear to the lower courts that you're going to start getting this stuff right because you've got it wrong so far too long. And Massachusetts is probably one of the biggest offenders of that getting cases wrong for a long period of time. Some of the district courts, Taylor, have just recently started to turn. We had that Donald Keith up in the little district court where the guy was arrested for legal possession of a gun because he was from New Hampshire. And he just wondered, oh, you went over the state line with a gun. And they, yeah, but the state's appealing it. They're like, no, you can't take that away from us. You know, they want to say that your rights have been checked. I thought, I thought there was, you know, oh, that's because Massachusetts is not a constitutional carry state, but every state north of us is correct. Yep. Okay. That makes sense. So why do you think the Supreme Court didn't want to take up that Illinois assault weapons ban? Why don't they want to have a say on this yet? Joe Biden has made this a campaign promise basically for 2024 that he wants to come up with an assault weapons ban again. I think it's the same reason that the Rahimi case didn't go quite favorable to the second amendment is because that was a facial challenge, which is very difficult to get overturned. You have to prove that there can never be an application of this law that is constitutional. And that's hard to do in one court case. The same thing happened today with this Illinois cases, the six cases from Illinois. They're on an interlocutory basis, which means they haven't had final judgment by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. And the Supreme Court doesn't usually jump over and take a case that hasn't reached final judgment. So that's a very rare. It does happen, but it's extremely rare and extremely difficult to get done. So really, this brings into focus back the Maryland and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Bianchi case, which is another assault weapons ban case that the court has already refused to take before the final judgment has come out, but they've at least heard oral arguments. So we're waiting for that to come out and have the Fifth Circuit rule on it. So if they rule unfavorable and they uphold the Maryland assault weapons ban, I think that the Supreme Court will take that case. That seems to be the next one that they would probably take. So I'm not exactly surprised that the Supreme Court didn't take those Seventh Circuit cases today because of the interlocutory basis of them, and they hadn't reached final judgment. So that's really the way I see it. But that's kind of what they said in there. Alito has said on an abortion case that, you know, why would we ever take an interlocutory case? That's very rare, rare. And they don't like to do that. They want the courts to get it right. They're trying to train the inferior courts to rule according to the law, right. And that's why they GVR so many cases. It's like they send it back. No, vacated your decision. Now get it right the way it should be done. So that's the way we're seeing a lot of cases go. All right, Toby, we've got to hold you right there. But where can people go if they want to learn more about you or Cape Gun Works or anything else you guys do? Yeah, thanks again, Taylor, for having me. It was a big day to get this kind of information out. And so they can go over to Cape Gun Works.com and rapidfireradio.us as well as follow us on social media at Cape Gun Works and at Rapid Fire Radio. Excellent. Thank you, Toby. We'll speak to you soon. 844-542-42. Coming up, Howie Carr will take us into the, well, The Howie Carr shows. Stay tuned. This is The Grace Curly Show. Follow Grace on Twitter @g_curly. This is The Grace Curly Show. Welcome back to The Grace Curly Show. Today's Carr crossover is brought to you by ReadyWise with inflation, food, and energy costs. Rising families are feeling the financial pinch as they struggle to make ends meet. Preparation is key. Our friends at ReadyWise have emergency food kits that will provide peace of mind. Go to ReadyWise.com and use code Howie20 at check out to save 20% on your order. I asked the question earlier, Howie, where is KJP? She wasn't out Friday. She wasn't out yesterday, but she's out now and she's blaming Biden's performance on the cold. Of course. I didn't know one of the symptoms was dementia. In coherence. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Did he get a bad dose of codeine? Is that who knows? Some really strong Nyquil he's taking. What are they blaming today's disaster on? Did you see the video of him touching the black guy's arm? He does that a lot though. He loves it. What was it called? Canons or something? Yeah, you got some guns on you, man. For somebody who's so against assault weapons, touching a lot of them. But it was like a caress. He was feeling the guy up. It was very weird. Well, it's it goes back to his lifeguard days, you know, with the with the hair on it. Remember that? Yeah. Little black kids in the pool and well, so he's returning the favor. They're not rubbing him anymore. He's rubbing them. I think that's part of dementia is a return to to childhood. A lot going on, of course. I can childhood and then oblivion, I believe, is the way Shakespeare put it. The mistrial in Karen Reed's case yesterday and Michael Proctor, what do you got to do to get fired from the Massachusetts state place? Well, that's what I just said. I said the good news is, you know, at least he's out of the office. He's never, he's never going anywhere. I'm going to have to get it this time. Hate vacation. We'll be right back.