Get the Ricochet app

Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.

Download on the App StoreGet it on Google Play

Become a member.

Tired of the toxicity of social media? Why not join Ricochet for just $5/month? Think of it as an online bar. Come in, have a drink, hang out, say whatever you want. But don’t badger, bully, or berate the other drinkers. That's our only rule.

The Three Whisky Happy Hour: High Crimes & Misdemeanors

Episode length: 1h 4m

Subscribe to 3 Whisky Happy HourSubscribe

We lead this week's show with a few short news announcements, including new menu items from McDonalds to excite John, and the debut of a new podcast competitor: Hadley Arkes and his merry band at the James Wilson Institute have launched "The 'Natural Law Moment' Podcast," surely goaded by our constant mangling of his central arguments. WE hope to have a crossover episode with Hadley at some early opportunity, if we can ever get our difficult schedules sorted out.

This round-robin format episode features a vigorous discussion of whether Obama and the Deep Staters (sounds like a bad bar-band, no?) are vulnerable to criminal charges for their obviously bad faith behavior in creating the Russia Hoax back in 2016, whether Obama is immune from prosecution because of the ruling last year of Trump v. US, and whether these actions properly rise to the level of "treason" as is alleged by DNI Tulsi Gabbard.

Our second segment reflects on a pair of articles Steve and John wrote for a Civitas Outlook symposium last week on "Statemanship and the American Presidency." John Yoo's entry slobbers over the legacy of Andrew Jackson, while

Steve's entry, "Taming the 21st Century Prince," is a more philosophical exploration of the issue, and, contrary to the careless calumnies and reckless imprecations of John, does not contain a single reference to the Clean Air Act!

And our final segment delves into a recent bold law review article by a young lawyer friend of ours, Deion Kathawa, entitled "'We the People' Are the Last Word on the Meaning of Our Constitution." His argument is bracing: Congress, because it is the political organ closest to the people, should have the power to override Supreme Court decisions. While agreeing with Kathawa's premise about the ultimate constitutional sovereignty of the people on account of the first principles of the Declaration of Independence, we're skeptical about his proposed remedy. What do listeners think? (We hope to have Deion on as a guest at some point soon to defend himself.)

Finally, some new AI-generated 3WHH custom poetry, and more revenge bumper music.

Hosts:
John Yoo'Lucretia'Steve Hayward

Discussion (11)

  • WilliamWarford@WilliamWarford

    Interesting discussion, as always. I thought we didn't want Congress having the last word on constitutionality for the same reason we don't want the House handling impeachment trials -- they are a bit too wedded to the whims of the electorate. Senators, with their six-year terms, can take a longer view. The Supremes, with their lifetime appointments, can, theoretically at least, do what they honestly think is right without feeling pressure from the shifting winds of the electorate.

  • Dr.Guido@DrGuido

    This non-attorney would like to know why the term sedition is avoided and, IF there is nothing new, as Prof Yoo says, why has former GOP Intel Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz claimed that the docs Gabbard released were precisely what a whistle blower tipped them off about BUT were locked up at Langley since 2017?

    Kim Strassel says serious but not actionable.

    VDH says it's MUCH WORSE than Watergate.

    2+2=4...........This does not add up.

    Am I wrong?

  • LibertyDefender@LibertyDefender
    1. With respect to Starlink's obstruction of Lucretia and Steve, it is another affirmation of Lucy Van Pelt as the prophet of my generation: it's all controlled by a big eastern syndicate.
    2. I appreciate the careful attention paid to the Constitution's definition of treason, but it seems to me that by John Yoo's interpretation, a bloodless coup - or an attempted bloodless coup - would not qualify as treason. Yet it cannot possibly be the case that the Founders and Ratifiers intended to exclude such acts or outcome from the definition of treason.

      "Levying war against [the United States]" - especially in the 21st Century - need not require armed combat. Barack Obama and Joe Biden were briefed by John Brennan in July of 2016 that the Hillary Clinton campaign intended to set up the Trump campaign as colluding with Russia - a known adversary of the United States. Barack Obama consequently directed and approved of the use of manufactured false intelligence to pursue the goal of disrupting both the Trump campaign and the Trump presidency. By those actions, Barack Obama was (a) attempting the overthrow of the United States government, and (b) adhering to an enemy of the United States.
    3. I'm a departmentalist.

    --John Yoo.

    So that's what the Deep State swamp kids are calling it these days, huh? (smile/wince)

Scroll for later comments
+6 more comments
Join the conversation

You're seeing five of eleven comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.