Monday’s podcast is all about the apparently weak case Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg intends to prosecute against Donald Trump and why—if the leaks are correct about the nature of the proceedings—all it will do is strengthen Trump and hurt the country. Also, Iraq 20 years later. Give a listen.
Today’s podcast takes up the breathless claim that a new source of the COVID pandemic has been located—it comes from a raccoon dog! Hmmm. Meanwhile, China is making moves in the Middle East and with Russia as it continues to elude responsibility for its role in the deaths of 7 million people from the virus. And why is Janet Yellen saying she’ll bail out some banks but not others? Give a listen.
Today’s podcast wonders at the notion that Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg might be bringing a case against the former president whose star witnesses for the prosecution would be a convicted felon and a porn-star-sex-worker. Is that wise, or just one string in a Lilliputian trap for Donald Trump? Also, will there be extended fallout from the Silicon Valley Bank collapse? Give a listen.
Today’s podcast features our old friend Jonathan Schanzer of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, who joins us to discuss Ron DeSantis’s characterization of the war in Ukraine as a “territorial dispute” in which we should not become entangled. And then we talk about the stunning news that China has brokered a deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia and what this says about American foreign policy, in line with Schanzer’s 2021 COMMENTARY article, “Diplomatic Arson in the Middle East.” Give a listen.
Today’s podcast takes up the astonishing effort by the research organization that found COVID masking to be ineffectual to deny that its own study said what its lead investigator says it said. (To follow the logic, listen to the podcast.) Also, jobs numbers and Chinese balloons. Eliana Johnson is in for Christine. Give a listen.
Today’s podcast is about a shameful New York Times story that offers a cheerful and positive look at a stroke victim in a profound depressive state and wonders why the paper did it. And why it is that Democrats on the committee investigating the origins of COVID took out after a journalist rather than deal with his reporting. Give a listen.
Today’s podcast looks at how extremists of the Left are going to make it hard for Joe Biden to get himself in a good position when it comes to crime—and how Tucker Carlson and others are going to make it hard for the GOP to get independent voters when it comes to soft-pedaling what happened on January 6. Give a listen.
Eli Lake joins the podcast to talk about his article, ‘The Iraq War, 20 Years Later.” But first we discuss Donald Trump’s stemwinder at CPAC over the weekend and whether a New York Post story on Anthony Fauci’s conduct in February 2020 is a smoking gun. Give a listen.
Today we talk about Congress’s move against the left’s ideological repurposing of retirement funds and what it means for the future of ESG investing. We also discuss Ron DeSantis’s Disney slap down, the wild success of his new book, and what he may or may not do to check Donald Trump’s gains. Give a listen.
The podcast today examines the stunning rejection of incumbent Chicago mayor Lori Lightfoot in a Democratic primary that ended with her getting 15 percent of the vote after a landslide four years earlier. Why did it happen? And what does it say about municipal governance and crime? Also, student loans and the feeling that you’re a sucker if you work hard and play by the rules. Give a listen.
Today’s podcast takes up the New York Times story about how the Biden administration is going to layer on regulations and rules directing companies it supposedly wants to strengthen the semiconductor industry to do nice progressive things. Is this constitutional? More to the point, is it stupid? Give a listen.
Today’s podcast discusses Trump’s trip to the site of the train derailment in Ohio—which came at the same time it began to dawn on those hopeful he would be taken down by a Georgia prosecutor that the grand-jury foreperson in that case might have been destroying the possibility of a successful proceeding against him. Also, will a Supreme Court decision ending affirmative action have the same, or the opposite, effect on the public discourse as the overturning of Roe v. Wade? Give a listen.
