Latest / 3 Martini Lunch – Political Humor & Commentary / The Lindsay Clancy Jurors' Shocking Admissions

Transcript

The Lindsay Clancy Jurors' Shocking Admissions · 3 Martini Lunch – Political Humor & Commentary

0:03
Speaker 1: Welcome to the three martini lunch.
0:04
Speaker 2: Grab a stool next to Greg Karambas of Radio America
0:07
Speaker 2: and Jim Garrity of National Review.
0:10
Speaker 1: Three martinis coming up.
0:13
Speaker 3: So glad you're with us for the three martini lunch.
0:16
Speaker 3: It is Wednesday. And Jim, we closed yesterday with the
0:19
Speaker 3: chaser of Lindsey Clancy's attorney saying that he was asking
0:24
Speaker 3: President Trump for a pardon. We pointed out that these
0:27
Speaker 3: are state charges, not federal charges. Not much that President
0:30
Speaker 3: Trump can do about that. But Kevin Reddington saying in
0:32
Speaker 3: a subsequent interview, apparently, that, oh, he's really just asking
0:36
Speaker 3: Trump to put pressure on the prosecutor not to retry
0:39
Speaker 3: this case, which we'll get to in just a second.
0:41
Speaker 3: But kind of the story really getting attention from yesterday
0:44
Speaker 3: is the fact that a number of the jurors have
0:47
Speaker 3: spoken out now, three of them gathered together to speak
0:50
Speaker 3: with a local station in Boston, and then another one
0:52
Speaker 3: did so anonymously. Two of these comments, and there's actually
0:57
Speaker 3: a lot of them that are getting a lot of attention,
0:58
Speaker 3: but here's the jury response. forewoman talking about how she
1:01
Speaker 3: thought the holdout juror had finally relented and she was
1:04
Speaker 3: so excited to pronounce the not guilty verdict.
1:08
Speaker 4: He had reasonable doubt. He admitted he had reasonable doubt
1:11
Speaker 4: after we watched that video of the interview. I think
1:14
Speaker 4: that's when it was. He admitted he had reasonable doubt
1:18
Speaker 4: and I started filling out the forms. I was so excited.
1:22
Speaker 4: I actually, there were three forms I had to fill
1:25
Speaker 4: out and I started filling them out. I wrote my
1:28
Speaker 4: signature on each one And then he said, but I'm
1:32
Speaker 4: still not going to say that she's not guilty by
1:35
Speaker 4: reason of insanity.
1:36
Speaker 3: And so we'll see if this holdout juror ever speaks
1:39
Speaker 3: about this. My guess is he probably won't, at least
1:41
Speaker 3: for a while. But I don't know that he would
1:44
Speaker 3: necessarily use the term reasonable. They probably said he had
1:47
Speaker 3: some doubt. But however that goes, the woman who's probably
1:50
Speaker 3: really regretting speaking out yesterday on camera is this woman.
1:54
Speaker 2: We read to him on numerous occasions the definition of
1:57
Speaker 2: a reasonable doubt from Judge Sullivan's instruction. He actually said
2:03
Speaker 2: one day in the end, well, why don't we have
2:05
Speaker 2: the judge come in and read it again? And we
2:07
Speaker 2: were like, no, we have it in front of us.
2:12
Speaker 2: We don't need that. And we would highlight it. And,
2:15
Speaker 2: you know, so and so. This is the definition of reasonable.
2:20
Speaker 2: But he had the hardest time getting off the fact
2:23
Speaker 2: that Lindsay viciously killed her children.
2:26
Speaker 3: He just stuck on that part about how Lindsay viciously
2:29
Speaker 3: killed her kids. So weird that he would focus on
2:31
Speaker 3: that point. The juror that did not go and put
2:35
Speaker 3: her name on the record. She's still anonymous to some extent.
2:39
Speaker 3: saying that she was originally going to vote to convict,
2:41
Speaker 3: but then was convinced that acquittal was the best way
2:43
Speaker 3: for Lindsay to get help. And perhaps the thing that
2:46
Speaker 3: was most revealing is that she said multiple jurors on
2:49
Speaker 3: both sides seemed pretty clear they had their minds made
2:52
Speaker 3: up from the get go here. So, Jim, what do
2:54
Speaker 3: you make of all this?
2:55
Speaker 1: Well, first of all, regarding Reddington's gamble that by calling
3:00
Speaker 1: for a pardon that Trump legally can't give, that really
3:04
Speaker 1: it looks like this is basically trying to get it
3:06
Speaker 1: on President Trump's radar screen. President Trump talked about it
3:09
Speaker 1: very briefly on Friday during an availability with reporters. He
3:13
Speaker 1: basically just said it was a very sad situation. There
3:15
Speaker 1: was certainly no indication that Trump had any interest in
3:18
Speaker 1: intervening in any way. But I figure if you're Reddington,
3:22
Speaker 1: it's a low risk, high potential reward scenario in which
3:26
Speaker 1: you try to put this on the president's radar screen,
3:30
Speaker 1: somehow convince him that this is a travesty of justice
3:33
Speaker 1: and that Lindsay Clancy is I don't know if he's
3:36
Speaker 1: going to say that she was prosecuted by Sleepy Joe.
3:38
Speaker 1: I don't know if he's going to say that, you know,
3:40
Speaker 1: she's really into crypto. Like, just try to play up
3:43
Speaker 1: to Trump's sympathies and see if you can get Trump
3:46
Speaker 1: to call up the local DA and say you shouldn't
3:49
Speaker 1: put her through another trial. I think the odds of
3:52
Speaker 1: Trump doing this are exceptionally low, probably like 5%. But
3:55
Speaker 1: if you're Reddington... Why not try the Hail Mary pass?
3:58
Speaker 1: Why not? You know, what do you have to lose
4:01
Speaker 1: by doing this? And I would say like most in
4:04
Speaker 1: most scenarios, it's unthinkable the president would do this with Trump.
4:07
Speaker 1: It's highly unlikely, but he pardons people. He commutes people.
4:12
Speaker 1: We've seen if you get the right person into, you know,
4:14
Speaker 1: whispering into Trump's ear, he can be convinced of this
4:16
Speaker 1: sort of thing. So it's not it's not nearly as
4:18
Speaker 1: crazy and moronic as it seemed yesterday. If this is
4:21
Speaker 1: kind of the ricochet bank shot, if you get Trump
4:24
Speaker 1: to put some sort of pressure on the local DA, who,
4:25
Speaker 1: by the way, is a Republican. I don't think it's
4:29
Speaker 1: going to work. As for the jurors, during the trial, Greg,
4:32
Speaker 1: when you and I were talking about this, we heard
4:33
Speaker 1: about people saying, ah, it's 11 to 1. Some of
4:37
Speaker 1: the jurors are wearing pink. It means they sympathize with
4:40
Speaker 1: Lindsay Clancy. And my attitude was, you never know what's
4:43
Speaker 1: going on inside a jury room, and you never know
4:45
Speaker 1: what's going on inside a juror's mind. So this was
4:47
Speaker 1: all kind of premature. Well, it's now no longer premature.
4:51
Speaker 1: They have gone on the NBC affiliate up in Boston
4:53
Speaker 1: and done that interview, and Greg... I have seen more
4:58
Speaker 1: logical reasoning and clearer, tougher judgments from Care Bears. This
5:06
Speaker 1: lived down to every stereotype of a presumably liberal, middle-aged
5:10
Speaker 1: or older woman from the Massachusetts area. I'm not even
5:13
Speaker 1: going to talk about the forms and the pronunciation there.
5:18
Speaker 1: And I think the clips you played were pretty bad,
5:21
Speaker 1: but there were even worse ones. And the one who
5:24
Speaker 1: kept coming up kept emphasizing how the prosecutor was harsh
5:29
Speaker 1: on a woman who had already admitted she had murdered
5:32
Speaker 1: three of her children, strangled them one by one. There
5:35
Speaker 1: was no compassion from the district attorney or the prosecutor.
5:39
Speaker 1: Are prosecutors supposed to be– at one point she lamented
5:42
Speaker 1: that the prosecutor was biased. This is not news reporting.
5:47
Speaker 1: This is not... The judge is supposed to be unbiased.
5:51
Speaker 1: The jurors are supposed to be unbiased. And boy, after
5:54
Speaker 1: this interview, there are reasons to wonder about that. But
5:58
Speaker 1: the prosecutor is not... I want the prosecutor to have
6:02
Speaker 1: a strong point of view of what happened and how
6:05
Speaker 1: the jury should... That's kind of in the job description.
6:09
Speaker 1: And so it was just utterly baffling that these women
6:12
Speaker 1: just lived down to every stereotype. Now, They had the
6:15
Speaker 1: choice to render their verdict. And if they had said
6:19
Speaker 1: something more along the lines of the fact that she
6:21
Speaker 1: took these actions is clear. But under Massachusetts law, where
6:25
Speaker 1: the prosecutor has to prove the sanity of the defendant,
6:28
Speaker 1: I felt like I had no choice. Like you could
6:30
Speaker 1: at least see the logic there. But when you keep
6:32
Speaker 1: emphasizing about how harsh the prosecutor was. and how Lindsay
6:36
Speaker 1: Clancy deserved compassion. That really makes me think you went
6:40
Speaker 1: into this with really excessive empathy, some would say toxic
6:45
Speaker 1: or suicidal empathy, towards the defendant in this situation. This
6:49
Speaker 1: interview will do damage to the faith in the U.S.
6:53
Speaker 1: criminal justice system. Now, here's the thing. You and I
6:55
Speaker 1: are old enough. We remember O.J., right? We remember cases
6:58
Speaker 1: where people thought, oh, this is definitely going to be,
7:01
Speaker 1: you know, the jury, the evidence is overwhelming, and the
7:03
Speaker 1: jury comes out and comes out with the different decisions.
7:06
Speaker 1: And let's point out, this was a hung jury, not
7:08
Speaker 1: a hung defendant. And we're going to, you know, there's
7:11
Speaker 1: probably going to be a second trial. Ed Morrissey over
7:14
Speaker 1: at Hot Air is speculating that what we're seeing from
7:17
Speaker 1: Reddington is this effort to basically taint the jury pool
7:20
Speaker 1: as much as possible. To basically make this as high profile,
7:24
Speaker 1: bring the political lightning rod of Donald Trump into it.
7:27
Speaker 1: He's clearly, you know, but the only thing I don't
7:29
Speaker 1: quite get with Ed is that, like, Trump is very
7:31
Speaker 1: unpopular in Massachusetts. As any Republican is. So it's kind
7:37
Speaker 1: of a question of how would appealing to Trump to
7:40
Speaker 1: pardon her make jurors more... I don't quite get the
7:44
Speaker 1: logic there. But either way, I think that this is...
7:49
Speaker 1: A lot of people in my world are buzzing about
7:51
Speaker 1: this interview. And again, I think before they came out
7:53
Speaker 1: and made the... By the way, if people say, oh,
7:55
Speaker 1: you know, this woman had to be on a jury
7:57
Speaker 1: for seven weeks and it was really rough. Hey, you
7:59
Speaker 1: know what? They made the decision to sit down for
8:01
Speaker 1: this interview. They sat down for the interview and walked
8:04
Speaker 1: through their decision-making and really seemed to believe that they
8:07
Speaker 1: were being very persuasive and understandable and that everything they
8:11
Speaker 1: were saying was logical and clear, and it isn't at all.
8:14
Speaker 1: And I think they looked like they went into it
8:16
Speaker 1: with way too much empathy and just a knee-jerk skepticism
8:21
Speaker 1: of everything the prosecutor said. At one point they said
8:25
Speaker 1: the prosecution didn't prove that she was a bad mother.
8:28
Speaker 1: She wasn't on trial for being a bad mother. She
8:30
Speaker 1: was on trial for three counts of murder that she
8:32
Speaker 1: already confessed to. You know, I, I, it is utterly baffling.
8:35
Speaker 1: And so it is, uh, you know, I, I thought
8:38
Speaker 1: we were done with this story late last week. And
8:40
Speaker 1: I think this interview has the power, has the potential
8:43
Speaker 1: to make this a much more lingering cultural memory, uh,
8:47
Speaker 1: and Americans lack of faith in other Americans capacity to
8:50
Speaker 1: serve on a jury.
8:52
Speaker 3: Exactly. So yeah, when you're like the, the prosecution wasn't
8:55
Speaker 3: compassionate enough towards the defendant, it's, Almost like the OJ
8:58
Speaker 3: jury where a couple of them were like, well, we
8:59
Speaker 3: didn't want more riots in L.A., so we acquitted. Well,
9:02
Speaker 3: that's not your job in this case. And so the
9:05
Speaker 3: prosecution's biggest failure was jury selection, seems like in this
9:09
Speaker 3: case and some others.
9:10
Speaker 1: Greg, who'd they reject?
9:13
Speaker 3: That's a good question. Unbelievable. All right.
9:17
Speaker 2: Well.
9:17
Speaker 3: Let's get that bad taste out of our mouth. And
9:19
Speaker 3: for that, there's no better source than Lorinco. Lorinco is
9:22
Speaker 3: better for you. Chewing gum that uses the same mineral
9:25
Speaker 3: your teeth are made of to support daily enamel health.
9:28
Speaker 1: Greg, we may never understand the minds of jurors, but
9:31
Speaker 1: we can understand nanohydroxyapatite. Yes, nanohydroxyapatite is the mineral that
9:36
Speaker 1: your enamel is actually made of. And Lorinco will strengthen
9:40
Speaker 1: your enamel and repair any damage to it. It comes
9:43
Speaker 1: in tons of flavors, including mint, cinnamon, bubblegum, and berry,
9:46
Speaker 1: and they have a really great fluoride-free toothpaste as well.
9:50
Speaker 3: Yeah, I love the raincoat, the toothpaste. I love the raincoat,
9:52
Speaker 3: the gum. The pieces seem small, and you're like, is
9:54
Speaker 3: this going to be enough to give me good flavor
9:56
Speaker 3: for a long time? Absolutely does. Great recommendation there on
10:00
Speaker 3: the gum, and it improves your teeth at the same time.
10:02
Speaker 3: What's better than that? So right now, Lorraine Co. is
10:05
Speaker 3: offering our listeners up to 50% off at buylorraine.com slash 3ML.
10:10
Speaker 3: That's buylorraine, L-A-R-I-N-E dot com slash 3ML.
10:15
Speaker 1: For 50% off. Well, Jim, if Mr.
10:23
Speaker 3: Reddington is looking for a response from President Trump on
10:26
Speaker 3: influencing the DA, or I'm sorry, the Commonwealth's attorney up
10:30
Speaker 3: there in Massachusetts, he's probably at least going to have
10:32
Speaker 3: to wait till after the Republicans' midterm convention, which begins
10:36
Speaker 3: tonight in Dallas. It's a two-day affair. Usually a national
10:38
Speaker 3: convention is four days, but midterms, two days seems quite enough.
10:43
Speaker 3: Trump will speak on both nights.
10:44
Speaker 1: J.D.
10:45
Speaker 3: Vance, I believe, will speak at least once. And then
10:47
Speaker 3: a lot of the candidates, both incumbents and challenging candidates,
10:50
Speaker 3: will be out there as well. So on the surface, Jim,
10:53
Speaker 3: this doesn't seem like a terrible idea necessarily. It's always
10:56
Speaker 3: hard for the president's party to have a lot of
10:58
Speaker 3: momentum in the midterm election season. Their president's been the
11:02
Speaker 3: target of a lot of criticism from the left and
11:04
Speaker 3: from the media for a long time. So this is
11:06
Speaker 3: your chance to get your message out unfiltered. The problem
11:10
Speaker 3: is a couple of different things. Number one, they're going
11:12
Speaker 3: smash up head to head against the start of the
11:14
Speaker 3: NFL season. Tonight is Patriots and the Seahawks. And then
11:16
Speaker 3: tomorrow night, you've got Rams 49ers from out in Australia.
11:20
Speaker 3: So a lot of people are going to be focusing
11:21
Speaker 3: on that. Secondly, they've got a little bit of a dilemma.
11:24
Speaker 3: On the one hand, they want to feature Trump prominently
11:27
Speaker 3: because there's a lot of Trump voters that didn't necessarily
11:29
Speaker 3: show up for the midterms in 2018 and 2022. And
11:32
Speaker 3: Obama had the same problem. Happens all the time. But
11:34
Speaker 3: at the same time, Trump's approval ratings are in the
11:36
Speaker 3: mid 30s in a lot of polls. And so other
11:39
Speaker 3: people you want to vote for you might not love
11:41
Speaker 3: that so much. So what's your take on the mini
11:44
Speaker 3: convention here?
11:45
Speaker 1: Well, when I first heard about this, I was like, oh,
11:47
Speaker 1: you know, this is an interesting idea. It is kind
11:49
Speaker 1: of strange that we have the conventions and presidential years,
11:54
Speaker 1: the midterms, which are almost as consequential. There is no
11:57
Speaker 1: national event saying this is what this is who we are.
12:00
Speaker 1: This is what we've done. This is what we stand for.
12:02
Speaker 1: This is what we want to do. Ever since 1994,
12:05
Speaker 1: people have said, ah, why don't Republicans come up with
12:07
Speaker 1: another contract with America? And the idea of having a
12:10
Speaker 1: very clear national brand identity for your party makes a
12:14
Speaker 1: lot of sense. So I was open to it. The
12:16
Speaker 1: moment I saw this was up against not one, but
12:18
Speaker 1: two nights of the start of the NFL season, and
12:21
Speaker 1: you and I could rant about the decision to play
12:23
Speaker 1: a game in Australia, which is Thursday night's game, is that, yeah,
12:26
Speaker 1: that's a whole separate thing. But like, That's a terrible idea.
12:30
Speaker 1: It's not like you're expecting huge ratings for this. Most Americans,
12:33
Speaker 1: when it comes to primetime, are not interested in watching
12:35
Speaker 1: a bunch of politicians speak. But nonetheless, this was just
12:38
Speaker 1: not a, like, oh, you already do it. I don't
12:41
Speaker 1: understand why they couldn't have done this the previous week.
12:43
Speaker 1: I don't understand why they can't do this next week.
12:45
Speaker 1: It just seems like very odd timing. The other thing,
12:48
Speaker 1: which is at least on the announced list of speakers,
12:50
Speaker 1: I suppose there's a chance that they change between now
12:52
Speaker 1: and then. Trump is speaking twice, as you said. Vance
12:55
Speaker 1: is supposed to speak the second night. Other speakers over
12:58
Speaker 1: the nights will include Treasury Secretary Scott Besant, Attorney General
13:02
Speaker 1: Todd Blanch, HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr., Mehmet Oz, the
13:06
Speaker 1: Senators for Medicaid and Medicare Services, Caroline Levitt, Scott Turner,
13:11
Speaker 1: and Donald Trump Jr. Hey, Greg, what offices are they
13:14
Speaker 1: running for? They're not on the ballot, right? And so
13:17
Speaker 1: my first thought was like, Each one of those speakers
13:21
Speaker 1: is taking up airtime from a candidate who probably could
13:24
Speaker 1: use the national exposure because you never know who's going
13:26
Speaker 1: to go up there, give a great speech, have a
13:28
Speaker 1: great moment, and suddenly have this huge surge of fundraising
13:31
Speaker 1: and things like that. The other thing is, for obvious reasons,
13:35
Speaker 1: they have Republican leadership speaking, Mike Johnson, John Barrasso, Tim Scott,
13:38
Speaker 1: Steve Scalise. None of these guys are in competitive races
13:42
Speaker 1: and are ones who really need to worry about it
13:45
Speaker 1: too much. So you look over this list of speakers
13:48
Speaker 1: and it's like, are you really spotlighting the ones who
13:52
Speaker 1: have the most to benefit from a national audience? And
13:56
Speaker 1: my suspicion is in too many cases, no. I don't
13:59
Speaker 1: know if there's necessarily... I also kind of wonder if
14:01
Speaker 1: one-nights versus two-nights was such a good idea. The established
14:04
Speaker 1: precedent for a four-night convention in a presidential year If
14:08
Speaker 1: it's a current president, you do Biden on the first night,
14:10
Speaker 1: so to speak. You do a former president on the
14:13
Speaker 1: second night. You do the vice presidential nominee the third night.
14:15
Speaker 1: You do the presidential nominee the fourth night. And there's
14:18
Speaker 1: kind of this established rhythm to it. With this one,
14:21
Speaker 1: you probably could do this all in one night and
14:23
Speaker 1: you'd probably get more attention. I don't know if you
14:24
Speaker 1: get nearly as much attention on the two nights. But
14:26
Speaker 1: then the other thing is, again, you're up against NFL
14:28
Speaker 1: football both nights. So I just kind of don't see.
14:31
Speaker 1: It feels like a good idea that is not being
14:35
Speaker 1: executed correctly. We'll see how it goes. We'll see how
14:38
Speaker 1: the ratings are. We'll see if any candidates come out
14:41
Speaker 1: of this with a huge surge of media coverage or
14:44
Speaker 1: donations or things like that. But it just feels like
14:47
Speaker 1: a bunch of odd decisions that are probably going to
14:49
Speaker 1: mitigate the effectiveness of an event like this.
14:52
Speaker 3: C-SPAN will provide gavel-to-gavel coverage if you're interested, and maybe
14:55
Speaker 3: they'll archive it. But the timing, why not next week?
14:58
Speaker 3: Last week, maybe you're bleeding into Labor Day weekend or whatever,
15:01
Speaker 3: but there's no reason to make it go head-to-head. With
15:05
Speaker 3: NFL football, you'd be running into a Thursday night NFL
15:07
Speaker 3: game no matter when you do it. But that's that's
15:09
Speaker 3: more manageable than an opening week where, you know, Tuesday.
15:11
Speaker 1: Night, Wednesday night. Like is there like Monday night was
15:15
Speaker 1: was with Labor Day. OK, although honestly, maybe everybody else
15:17
Speaker 1: was like, I don't know. It just kind of feels
15:19
Speaker 1: like a weird decision to pick these two nights.
15:22
Speaker 3: So the opportunities there articulate it well and stay on
15:25
Speaker 3: message would be my advice to everyone involved there. But
15:29
Speaker 3: we'll see how it goes. All right, in the meantime, ZocDoc,
15:33
Speaker 3: making sure that you are in tip-top shape. Hopefully you're
15:35
Speaker 3: all caught up on your appointments, but maybe you need
15:38
Speaker 3: to go to a specialist and you're not sure which one,
15:41
Speaker 3: and people have recommended a couple different ones. Well, go
15:43
Speaker 3: to ZocDoc, look at all those reviews, see when an
15:46
Speaker 3: appointment's available there, book it without having to call anyone. Look,
15:50
Speaker 3: ZocDoc just lets you search and compare local in-network doctors
15:53
Speaker 3: and then book without even making a call.
15:55
Speaker 1: You know, Greg, if your midterm convention lasts more than
15:57
Speaker 1: four hours, you should see a doctor. And ZocDoc lets
16:01
Speaker 1: you search and compare local in-network doctors, whatever insurance you have.
16:05
Speaker 1: They have more than 150,000 providers within more than 200
16:08
Speaker 1: specialties across all 50 states. Their website has tons of
16:12
Speaker 1: reviews from real patients and detailed doctor profiles that will
16:14
Speaker 1: help make sure you choose the one who's right for you.
16:17
Speaker 3: Look, your health matters and taking care of yourself shouldn't
16:19
Speaker 3: be all that complicated. So find and book the right
16:21
Speaker 3: doctor with ZocDoc. Head to ZocDoc.com slash 3ML to get
16:25
Speaker 3: started and check that appointment off your to-do list. That's Z-O-C-D-O-C.
16:30
Speaker 3: All right, Jim, on to our third martini now. Big
16:43
Speaker 3: fight brewing on social media among different people on the
16:47
Speaker 3: right over the weekend, and it's still going to some extent.
16:50
Speaker 3: Vice President J.D. Vance, who we said will be speaking
16:53
Speaker 3: at this midterm convention down in Dallas, has suggested the
16:56
Speaker 3: idea of that federal dollars that right now are set
17:00
Speaker 3: aside to help two working parents defray daycare costs ought
17:05
Speaker 3: to also be used to help families with a stay-at-home mom.
17:08
Speaker 3: With rising costs, it's harder and harder for one parent
17:11
Speaker 3: to stay home, but that's a major priority for many families.
17:15
Speaker 3: And so, Jim, some people are saying, look, as long
17:18
Speaker 3: as we're incentivizing money to help families. Why not help
17:21
Speaker 3: these families? We can't really kill the program. So we
17:25
Speaker 3: might as well make sure that those with a more
17:27
Speaker 3: traditional approach to work and staying at home can benefit
17:31
Speaker 3: from this as well. Others are saying, no, this is
17:33
Speaker 3: welfare expansion, basically. And so the real goal here should
17:38
Speaker 3: be to kind of scrap the program, let people get
17:40
Speaker 3: their tax dollars back and spend them how they want to.
17:42
Speaker 3: So I don't know that Vance is going to be
17:45
Speaker 3: able to codify this in any way, but there is
17:47
Speaker 3: the ability in the executive branch to kind of shuffle
17:50
Speaker 3: it around without congressional authorization. So what do you expect
17:53
Speaker 3: to happen here and how do you see it?
17:55
Speaker 1: I would characterize myself, Greg, as skeptical but willing to
17:58
Speaker 1: hear more. We've only seen a couple of news articles
18:01
Speaker 1: about this. We haven't seen the actual text of how
18:04
Speaker 1: this would work out. One detail that just jumps out
18:08
Speaker 1: to me is the idea of staying home to take
18:10
Speaker 1: care of a child. They haven't specified what child is.
18:14
Speaker 1: So is it anyone from 0 to 18? Is it
18:16
Speaker 1: above a certain age and I have a 16-year-old. So
18:19
Speaker 1: if I can benefit– it doesn't require nearly as much
18:21
Speaker 1: care as infants or toddlers or kindergartners or your two
18:26
Speaker 1: adorable Muppets. But nonetheless, if I could get– oh, okay.
18:29
Speaker 1: I'd be fine. That'd be great. But no, a bit
18:31
Speaker 1: more seriously, this would pay parents about $ 9, 000 a year
18:37
Speaker 1: per child. So if you've got two kids at home–
18:39
Speaker 1: and by the way, this is not like a deduction
18:41
Speaker 1: from your taxes or something like that. This is like
18:43
Speaker 1: direct– why I'm from the government, here is your check.
18:46
Speaker 1: And I think if you're a conservative, that should make
18:48
Speaker 1: you a little unnerved. I'm not comfortable with this attitude of, well,
18:53
Speaker 1: big government is here to stay, so we might as
18:55
Speaker 1: well use it to reward our constituents and groups that
18:57
Speaker 1: support our party as opposed to groups that support the
19:00
Speaker 1: other party. When I see people say– because you add– basically,
19:05
Speaker 1: once you create this– Our experience with federal government and
19:08
Speaker 1: all entitlement programs, Greg, is that this increases dependency upon
19:11
Speaker 1: the government. And once you enact it, it becomes absolutely
19:14
Speaker 1: impossible to ever repeal and extraordinarily difficult to even trim
19:18
Speaker 1: in the slightest. 1994 welfare reform might be one of
19:20
Speaker 1: the few examples of that. And so I just look
19:23
Speaker 1: at this and I feel like this is a deception.
19:25
Speaker 1: And when I hear the folks who are more populist,
19:28
Speaker 1: they say, of course, I'm not deceiving you. I'm engaging
19:30
Speaker 1: with you as a human being. Why would I deceive
19:32
Speaker 1: you in honor of that A24? This just feels like
19:38
Speaker 1: creating another entitlement that is likely to benefit a group
19:41
Speaker 1: of people who tend to vote Republican but are not
19:43
Speaker 1: guaranteed to vote Republican. Um, and the other thing, which I,
19:46
Speaker 1: you know, when you create something like this, you, you then,
19:48
Speaker 1: you know, almost always there's some sort of income cutoff.
19:52
Speaker 1: And the question then is, have you now created disincentive
19:56
Speaker 1: to take that promotion or, or get that better paying job?
20:00
Speaker 1: Because then you're losing your $ 9, 000 per kid payment from
20:03
Speaker 1: the federal government. I get, I'm, I'm willing to hear more.
20:07
Speaker 1: I realize this is, you know, at this point we
20:09
Speaker 1: just kind of have the, the broad contours or sketch
20:11
Speaker 1: of this program. But I'm highly skeptical. And this just
20:14
Speaker 1: kind of feels like, well, we can't fight big government.
20:17
Speaker 1: So we might as well use it to benefit people
20:19
Speaker 1: we like.
20:19
Speaker 3: And the tax code is tricky. But as we've said,
20:22
Speaker 3: many times, and we're not certainly not the first ones
20:24
Speaker 3: to say it, whatever you tax, you're disincentivizing, whatever you,
20:28
Speaker 3: you know, give money to your you're incentivizing. And so
20:32
Speaker 3: You know, we want to incentivize what works best for
20:35
Speaker 3: families across the board. And we certainly want to make
20:37
Speaker 3: sure that if the goal is for one parent to
20:39
Speaker 3: be able to stay home, that that's the case. But
20:41
Speaker 3: I think ideally, you would want them to just get
20:43
Speaker 3: back as much of their own money as humanly possible
20:45
Speaker 3: and make that work rather than rely on a government program.
20:48
Speaker 3: But we'll see. Exactly how this works and whether the
20:51
Speaker 3: president actually moves forward on it.
20:52
Speaker 1: Hey, Greg, didn't the debt just pass $ 40 trillion? $ 40 trillion.
20:56
Speaker 1: Like one of those– now I realize some of this
20:58
Speaker 1: is existing money in an existing program that already goes
21:01
Speaker 1: to support single parents.
21:03
Speaker 4: OK.
21:03
Speaker 1: All right. I get that. But like there's just kind
21:05
Speaker 1: of a– is this really the time to start saying, hi,
21:07
Speaker 1: I'm from the government. I'm here to give you more
21:09
Speaker 1: kinds of money in new and different ways of handing
21:12
Speaker 1: out more money to more people? This doesn't strike me
21:14
Speaker 1: as– philosophically, anywhere in the direction we ought to be
21:17
Speaker 1: heading in.
21:17
Speaker 3: Now, they claim they're just shuffling around the existing money, but.
21:20
Speaker 1: Do you think a Democratic Congress and a Democratic president
21:23
Speaker 1: will look at it that way? No, no, probably not.
21:28
Speaker 3: All right. In a moment, a meme comes true. All right, Jim,
21:37
Speaker 3: yesterday was primary day in New Hampshire. No big surprises.
21:41
Speaker 3: Easy wins for John Sununu and Chris Pappas. So they'll
21:43
Speaker 3: clash in the Senate race this fall for the retiring
21:47
Speaker 3: Gene Shaheen. There are now only two states left to
21:50
Speaker 3: have their primaries. Next week is Delaware on Tuesday. And today.
21:54
Speaker 3: is Rhode Island. So that old meme of, hey, you know,
21:57
Speaker 3: that's going to be so crowded on election day that
21:59
Speaker 3: these folks are going to vote on Tuesday and these
22:01
Speaker 3: folks are going to vote on Wednesday. Well, in Rhode
22:03
Speaker 3: Island today, you actually are voting on Wednesday.
22:06
Speaker 1: So first of all, Greg, do you think anybody in
22:08
Speaker 1: Rhode Island showed up yesterday at the polling place? Like,
22:12
Speaker 1: where is everybody? Hello? Is it? Hello? Is anybody in there?
22:15
Speaker 1: You know, or you show up to the school and like,
22:18
Speaker 1: why are you a grown adult walking around the elementary school?
22:20
Speaker 1: um so that's that's problem number one problem number two
22:23
Speaker 1: like i'm assuming people will turn up today so i
22:26
Speaker 1: guess i don't hear any controversy about this but this
22:28
Speaker 1: just does some really weird um that they would do
22:31
Speaker 1: it on wednesday it's not like yesterday i know you
22:34
Speaker 1: know labor day was monday but like this is a
22:37
Speaker 1: very bizarre sense of like we're just gonna do it
22:39
Speaker 1: to be different you know the way that like arizona's
22:42
Speaker 1: like yeah we're just not doing daylight savings time we
22:44
Speaker 1: you know It's too hot anyway. We're just going to,
22:47
Speaker 1: you know, we're not changing the clocks. Too much trouble.
22:50
Speaker 1: We're just not doing it. Which every time I fly
22:52
Speaker 1: out to Arizona is fun because I always want to
22:54
Speaker 1: ask people, OK, but what time is it really? And
22:58
Speaker 1: then finally, Delaware, what's going on? Like, you know, you're
23:02
Speaker 1: you're showing not just the home state of Joe Biden.
23:05
Speaker 1: But the electoral reflexes of Joe Biden– it's September 9th.
23:10
Speaker 1: What are you doing? You're not even having your primary
23:12
Speaker 1: until next week? Do you hate general election seasons? Do
23:15
Speaker 1: you love primary campaigns? What is the thinking here? We
23:20
Speaker 1: don't need any federal legislation to standardize this. It just
23:22
Speaker 1: seems late because– Craig, didn't we have some primaries as
23:26
Speaker 1: early as March?
23:27
Speaker 2: Yeah.
23:27
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. It's a long primary season for midterms. Kind of,
23:30
Speaker 1: you know, get together, states.
23:32
Speaker 3: Yeah.
23:32
Speaker 4: Yeah.
23:32
Speaker 3: More consequential midterms in a long time, too. A lot
23:35
Speaker 3: of incumbents biting the dust in both parties.
23:38
Speaker 1: So, yeah.
23:39
Speaker 3: So, Rhode Island listeners, you do have a primary today. So,
23:43
Speaker 3: remember that. And we'll see what goes on after that. So, Jim,
23:46
Speaker 3: have a good day. See you tomorrow.
23:47
Speaker 1: See you tomorrow, Greg.
23:49
Speaker 3: Jim Garrity, National Review. I'm Greg Karambas of Radio America.
23:52
Speaker 3: Thanks so much for being with us today. Please be
23:54
Speaker 3: sure to subscribe to the Three Martini Lunch. If you
23:56
Speaker 3: don't already, tell your friends about us as well. We'd
23:58
Speaker 3: love to have them listening. Thanks also for your five-star
24:00
Speaker 3: ratings and your kind reviews. Get us on your home devices.
24:03
Speaker 3: All you have to say is play Three Martini Lunch
24:05
Speaker 3: podcast and follow us both on X. Jim is at
24:08
Speaker 3: Jim Garrity. I'm at Greg Karambas. Have a terrific Wednesday
24:11
Speaker 3: and join us again Thursday for the next Three Martini Lunch.